More thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
By popular request. Comments from El Gordo and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by El Gordo and responses to comments by El Gordo should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
This thread is for people who wish to engage Ray in discussion.
Ray, please do not post comments to any other thread.
Everyone else, please do not respond to Ray in any other thread.
By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
Let me be the first to welcome the end of March midway through April...
More evidence that the predicted catastrophic-only climate change scenarios are indeed fact and not prediction.
Well it is in tune with Summer ending later Batty.
Of course it is Lionel, that's why it's evidence.
So inside of a decade or two max, the earth will be without almost all coral and certainly without (sub-)tropical coral.
Sit back, relax and enjoy the mayhem.
"Sit back, relax and enjoy the mayhem"
Or, we can fix the prediction by developing the undeveloped nations, which somehow is predicted to reduce the CO2 emission that are the main predicted cause of the prediction.
Of course, the other obvious leading cause is the use of the word prediction itself, so if we eliminate the thugs and criminals that say "prediction" (not to be confused with the soothsayers and prophets), then this will also help fix the prediction (Book of Kampen, Chapter 1, verse 3)
The coral is done for. It is as simple as that.
"Or, we can fix the prediction by developing the undeveloped nations"
We've been through this nonsense before. The rich nations are not interested in developing the poor nations or in integrating them fully into the global economy, but only in looting their resources. Our planners are well aware of the fact that if the per capita footprints of developed nations grow, then they will demand more of their own resource bases forcing the rich nations to scale back consumption and waste production.
Betula keeps coming back with this bull**** argument, and he knows damned well that the rich and powerful nations, and elites within them, have no intention at all at eradicating poverty in the south. If Battie even understood basic economics and politics, as well as ecological footprint analysis, he wouldn't make such flippant remarks. He writes as if everyone in the quad - the US/Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia - somehow want to help the destitute masses in the poor countries. But for our corporations and many economists and state planners, reducing poverty has never been a priority for the main reason that I explained.
So when Battie talks about 'developing the poor nations to deal with AGW' he knows that it will never be allowed to happen.
Saying that AGW will harm biodiversity and that this will make systems more prone to collapse, ultimately rebounding on humanity, is not a prediction Battie. Its a fact.
You need to learn to separate predictions from realities.
"The coral is done for. It is as simple as that."
Not if we can get the developed nations to pay for the development of the undeveloped nations. That will fix it.
“Or, we can fix the prediction by developing the undeveloped nations”
Really? Like we've done so many times before, somehow never ending up with them being better off, but the western wold doing rather well out of the "deal"?
How naive...
Except this isn't actual concern for others, it's using them as a human shield, to hide doing anything about the problem behind.
It wasn't long ago when you were decrying AGW being a plot to redistribute the wealth to the undeveloped nations, stealing from you.
Wow, so the goal isn't to develop the undeveloped nations? Please explain...
What the hell is going on?
First we find out polar bear populations are stable, then scientists tell us that models can't predict rainfall and drought, now we find out carbon fertilization is creating forest growth in BC that is outpacing Mountain Pine Beetle damage...
Next thing you know, these "laughable" "soothsaying" denying scientists will be telling us that they found species of spiders that thrive in the tropics...
This is despicable.
Betula, one cannot measure stability in a K-selected organism over the course of less than a century. To say Polar Bear populations are stable is nonsense, unless we have historical data going back centuries, which sadly we don't. But the most recent study shows a rapid deterioration in the physical condition of Polar bears from the western Hudson's Bay population. One of my colleagues here studied the effects of toxins stored in the bears metabolism on fitness and found worrying signs as well.
As for GSWs post, the data ignore pine beetle responses, and also longer thermal responses of the coniferous forests as the temperatures continue to rise. What are the trees going to do when it gets too warm for them? Uproot and migrate to the tundra of the north?
Good grief you and GSW are simple idiots. Why you twits venture into fields outside of your competence is anyone's guess. Its Dunning-Kruger x 1000.
"To say Polar Bear populations are stable is nonsense,"
However, nonsense is all betty has.
"Wow, so the goal isn’t to develop the undeveloped nations?"
So when you decry it as a money grab, you mean you're FOR wealth redistribution? Please explain.
"First we find out polar bear populations are stable,"
Lie.
"then scientists tell us that models can’t predict rainfall and drought,"
Lie.
"now we find out carbon fertilization is creating forest growth in BC that is outpacing Mountain Pine Beetle damage…"
Lie.
But we all knew that, right?
"This is despicable."
Yes, your lies are, but you won't stop.
What the hell is going on?
Hundreds if not thousands of studies by scientists across the world are showing that AGW, along with other human-mediated stresses to the environment, are negatively affecting the biology and survival of numerous terrestrial and marine organisms, and that this threatens the stability and resilience of complex adaptive systems upon which humans depend.
Next thing you know, these "laughable" non-expert, uneducated right wingnuts will be telling us that clear cutting of tropical forests enhances biodiversity.
This is despicable.
wow - "Lie" "Lie" "Lie"
wow, why would all theses scientists lie, what is in it for them? Do you smell a conspiracy?
And yes, it is very telling that you didn't answer my question regarding development. So thanks for the answer.
Hopefully not O/T, just had this on my twitter TL,
"Philosopher Alex Epstein champions fossil fuels at the Senate EPWC -- complete testimony and Q&A "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5KoYJ64vjA
""I know many of you have fought to restrict fossil fuel use, and it can be politically difficult to change one's stand, but if you[alarmists] continue on your current path, you will cause billions of people to suffer unnecessarily"
Worth listening to.
Nuclear Winter isn't dead-
It's just hibernating on RetroTV
http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2016/04/its-not-dead-its-just-hibe…
Ive just read a loon in an old newspaper comments
section say " Townsville is 8 degrees warmer than
Melbourne, and Townsville is certainly not uninhabitable "!!!!
Such wonderful naive logic. Almost sterotypes the genre of
denialist rationale.
Methinks many species that inhabit Melboune would
perish quick quick in Townsville.
A world inhabited only by extreme generalists
is a pretty shit world in my opinion.
People, rats, and weeds.
Alex Epstein is a fossil-fuel lobbyist and free market ideologue.
Wind power is cheaper than coal.
Ergo, Alex Epstein wants billions of people to suffer unnecessarily by forcing upon them the excessive costs associated with the industry hi think-tank is funded to promote.
How do paid lobbyists even have a voice
in policy formulation???
By odin the yank system is inherently flawed.
#20 in other worls countries like Germany and Denmark and Puerto Rico are suffering unbearably because of sustainable energy terror rising there bigtime.
Epstein is not a 'philosopher', of course. He's a criminal fraud.
http://www.desmogblog.com/alex-epstein
GSW is so utterly stupid that he has no shame at all in copy-pasting posts by shills up here as if they are worth listening to.
Just for Battie:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/us-corporations-14-trillio…
Yup, many of those huge, US corporations sure are decent, honorable organizations that want to pay their dues to society. Pass me the barf bag.
Hardley, not sure what your link has to do with anything I've said, other than it is an article on a social justice web page, which is what I've been saying climate change is linked to since the beginning.
Perhaps you can copy/paste something I've said that has your imagination all tied up in your panties...
Battie, you've been trying to suggest that US corporations were not implicated in the Panama papers as tax avoiders...
The only reason for that is that the papers were leaked by organizations with close ties to the US State Department. As the article shows, some of the very worst tax haven/tax avoiding corporations are US based. The fact that they avoid taxes shows how morally bankrupt they are. And since they have many of the politicians and the system in their back pocket, they can easily evade accountability.
"Battie, you’ve been trying to suggest that US corporations were not implicated in the Panama papers as tax avoiders"
I've been "trying" to "suggest"?.....That's an imagination speaking if I ever did hear one.
I asked you to list the U.S. corporations listed in the Panama papers which you still haven't done. I also notice you haven't mentioned any governments or officials that are actually listed in the Panama papers....
Is this the same imagination that witnessed climate change "first hand" when your friend got frostbite?
You're the best Hardley, still better than Kampen....
Be proud.
I think you've been spending too much time up trees, Battie.
I need to spell this out in capitals so it will sink in:
ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS AVOIDING TAXES IN THE PANAMA PAPERS WERE LEAKED TO THE MEDIA. THIS IS BECAUSE THE ORGANIZATION THAT DID SO HAS LINKS TO THE US STATE DEPARTMENT AND CLEARLY DID NOT WANT TO EMBARRASS US-BASED CORPORATIONS. THE AIM WAS TO DAMAGE THE REPUTATIONS OF PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS ABROAD, ESPECIALLY THOSE IN STATES DEEMED AS ENEMIES OF THE U.S.
Does that sink in you simpleton? Wikileakes already argued that all of those in the Panama papers should be named, but the leakers won't do it if it harms the reputations of U.S.-based corporations. This has been made clear from the outset, yet somehow you just don't grasp it.
As an addendum, the Soros foundation and USAid are up to their necks in the leak:
https://www.veooz.com/news/RKidSUY.html
Nothing the US government does on behalf of the ruling elites and corporate sector surprises me any more. To suggest that wealthy US citizens and corporations pay their fair share of tax is absurd. Read the Guardian article I linked to earlier. 1.4 trillion dollars of corporate wealth in the US is stuffed away in tax havens. Its vile.
To wit: http://www.kohraam.com/special-reports/complete-list-of-people-named-in…
Altogether about six months worth of Shell tax evasions (read: subsidies).
Hardley - Is that the same George Soros who is on the external board of advisors of the Earth Institute, run by Jeff Sachs, who is an advisor to the U.N Secretary General regarding development of undeveloped nations....and where James Hansen iis employed?
What is also vile ids one of those corporations listed on that Guardian piece namely Microsoft. Microsoft are ramming updates to Windows 10 onto those using Win 7 or 8.1 even if they have refused it. Microsoft downloaded an update about two months ago which effectively activates a download of the Win 10 binary which can then be activated to install when MS choose. Which is happening now. It has caused bandwidth and disc storage space issue for people and takes considerable knowledge and effort to reverse once done.
If suddenly finding your peripherals such as scanners and printers obsoleted being left without fully working drivers wasn't bad enough evidently Windows 10 will switch to using MS equivalents of many common third party software packages.
This can include Firefox and Chrome, Photoshop. But it gets worse, "Microsoft's server is storing everyone's Wi-Fi network passwords and tracking the computer usage of Windows 10 users."
@Craig #24
"Wind power is cheaper than coal."
Only if wind is subsidised and you "invent" ways to make Coal prohibitively expensive. It's almost as if the GWPF had you in mind with this reprint from the Dutch papers today,
"Hundreds Of Windmills Operating At A Loss, Facing Demolition"
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=b8b2d0…
:)
#35, thanks.
#37 coal is subsidized at a factor between thirty and a hundred.
Presently the subsidies are detonating, because now you will also pay to:
- keep struggling, losing coal companies flailing for as long as possible;
- back worthless investments that are made cf the bill the AUS taxpayer will now foot for Peabody;
- the CEO's bonusses (because in today's world it is fail big - cash big).
More via BH,
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2016/4/15/money-to-burn-josh-368.html
"Lots of news about renewables, especially wind and solar, feeling the sharp stab of economic reality and the burn of bankrupcy - see SunEdison, German renewables, more SunEdison, Dutch wind and British green blundering - all via The GWPF.
This would be cheery news if governments hadn't wasted so much taxpayers cash on such pointless policies in the first place."
Yeah, "wind is cheaper than Coal"
NOT,
:)
GSW must live on another planet. He has the audacity to talk about a waste of taxpayers money on renewable sources of energy while ignoring the massive and perverse subsidies that come from tax money spend on dirty non-renewables. Trust a vile site like BH to bring this up. And trust a complete idiot like GSW to defend subsidies for one and not the other.
Yes, Battie, they are one and the same. Your insinuation - wrong as always - is that Soros is some kind of liberal-left leaning philathropist when he's no different from the other members of the ruling elite when it comes to concentrating wealth. And just look at Sachs' record in promoting shock therapy to countries in South America and former Soviet Republics when communism bit the dust. This therapy plunged millions of ordinary folk into immediate and deep poverty. Indeed, Sachs had recommended policies that would have made Hayak, Friedman and the Chicago Boys proud. The only difference was that he erroneously thought that some international agency like the IMF would give billions away as sweeteners to ease the pain of mass privatization. How wrong he was.
You are so utterly stupid that you do not think that liberal elites are the same as the right wing kind. Look up the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations and you'll find that the agendas they support are identical. Both sides of the political spectrum support TTP and TTIP, which are hardly free trade agreements at all but are more designed to increase and concentrate corporate power.
So here's some advice: learn something about the way the world works. Clearly, you and I operate on very, very different intellectual levels. That is obvious.
One mistake - I should not have described the IMF (or indeed the World Bank) as international agencies. They are essentially just organs of the US Treasury.
"ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS AVOIDING TAXES IN THE PANAMA PAPERS WERE LEAKED TO THE MEDIA."
And nobody calling for someone to be summarily executed for their treason...
I fully support Jeff Harvey's view on the Panama papers and detest the foolish ignorance of people like GSW or Betula on this subject.
Here's a nice little snippet on Sachs, the natural successor to Friedman and Hayek:
http://www.internationalist.org/jeffreysachsows1110.html
Hardley -"You are so utterly stupid that you do not think that liberal elites are the same as the right wing kind"
Acuallly, you are so utterly stupid, you failed to see that my mentioning of Soros, Sachs and Hansen was to prove they are.,..
Keep up the comedy Hardley, you epitomize the Deltoid asylum.
Prove they are what? Hansen is a lifelong Republican. However, save me the time. I know exactly what you were trying to say. Something about linking Sachs and Soros to some left-wing, UN-based agenda. You are completely transparent Betula.
The late Alexander discussed how Sachs fir well into the neoliberal agenda and how writers like Naomi Klein explored it in more detail. What is clear, or should be (but isn't to you) is that elites on both apparent sides of the political spectrum share the same agenda. And that is to concentrate wealth and power. The rest of the population are nothing more than sheeple. But you are so dumbed donw by your simple left:right views of the world that you don't even see it.
And you have the audacity to talk about comedy, as we continue to skewer you with your own words on here. May I suggest you lick your wounds and take your brand of humor elsewhere?
Cockburn, that is...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-sm…
But hey, the Dunning-Kruger brigade on BH, WUWT, CA, CD etc., will say its all OK, stay the course.
Better hurry up and develop before it's too late....
Hardley, what do you personally imagine is the deadline for the development needed to prevent the future predictions?
"Hansen is a lifelong Republican"......who voted for John Kerry. Got it.
Hardley - "But you are so dumbed donw by your simple left:right views of the world that you don’t even see it."
Says the person who saw a spider while his friend was getting frostbite and viewed it as witnessing the global climate changing first hand...ouch.
Jeff, everybody knows The Guardian is a left-leaning newspaper, same as the left-leaning doctored temperature data.
Check out what the left-leaning Arctic sea ice is doing:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
2+2=global marxist plot
"The JMA measurements go back to 1891 and show that every one of the past 11 months has been the hottest ever recorded for that month."
"Data released released later on Friday by NASA confirmed last month was the hottest March on record"
"The World Meteorological Organisation, the UN body for climate and weather, said the March data had “smashed” previous records."
JMA, NASA, WMO = marxist plotters.
I've been trying to find a video of people dumber than Betula.
It was hard, but I think I found it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSnPUqt-qow
Check out the people in frame at 1:30....
If anybody has video of anybody dumber than that, let me know.
Betula hasn't lost it. He never had it. Note how he is unable to respond to a single point we are all making here. One thing that sails right over Betula's head - but we can partially forgive him, being American - is that the two political parties in the US are idealogical clones in thrall to corporations. And with respect to Hansen, voting for Kerry was the first time he'd not voted Republican. And how different would Kerry have been from Bush? Not at all. Kerry's as much in the pocket of big business as Bush, Cruz, Obama and Clinton are.
All Betula has left is to make vacuous jibes about an article written about my trek across Algonquin Park in 2012. He's also quietly moved on from his 'North American biomes are doing well because White-Tailed Deer are abundant and Wild Turkey reintroductions' have been a success, just as his equally cement-headed comment about C02 in greenhouses as a proxy for the planet showed his profound ignorance.
As Craig said, Betula has no riposte to the NASA/JMA/NOAA et al. bodies showing alarming data on global temperatures. So he's left with his own brand of brainless humor.
I guess that made sense to BirchBark but as for the rest of humanity, not so much. Tortured thought processes spilling out in a melange of words. This is why discussion with BirchBark is like trying to nail a blanc-mange to the wall, there is little to grip on in that amoeba like entity that is Barker's mind.
Another record cyclone on the globe, this one near Madagaskar.
Miami must be gearing up.
I found the antics of the driver (looks like he is wearing a chef's hat) of the silver coloured vehicle facing towards the river, first seen on near side of road finally decide to get into his vehicle and instead of reversing out of trouble decides to turn in the road and blocking in those nearer the river. I'll bet some curses were aimed in his direction. He then gets caught up behind that SUV and others manage to pass him leaving him in hole as the road surface is washed away beneath him. That is stupid at work.
I think they are members of the alternative (on grounds of different religious persuasion) Wendy Wright club of which latter Birch Bark is already a paid up member.
Again - "Hardley, what do you personally imagine is the deadline for the development needed to prevent the future predictions?"
Yes, I did "Note how he is unable to respond to a single point"
Some highlights from Betula's tree pruning company:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A38tbdu6ugk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCUGzGg8d4Q&ebc=ANyPxKr03Q20nDCLY1BJAMs…
Craig decides to join the fight...
http://wardocumentaryfilms.com/combat-clips/isis-fighter-accidentally-s…
I have answered your point over and over Batty. Your development argument is a red herring and you know it. If you understood a scintilla about western foreign policy agendas you'd know that the quad aren't interested in developing the poor south, because we are too busy looting their resource base. Since we are the major polluters, its up to the developed world to reduce its ecological footprint and to deal with the equity dilemma. You honestly are so dumb that probably you think that the US is 'self-sustaining' and that it attained its position on hard work and sound ethics. Plunder is nowhere in your vocabulary. You've clearly spent way too much time up trees.
As I said, you and I argue on very different intellectual levels. I'll leave it up to the readers here to decide who knows more.
Hardley family home movies...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5GOxyvX2Nk
Jeff, that one at c 1:04 in the Chainsaw Clowns clip is unbelievable, he must have watched too many cartoons where the character saws through the branch betwixt him and the trunk and nobody falls down as the limb is severed.
Oh and Betty the relevance of your last clip is...? It totally lacks any contextual relationship to anything we have said. What a weird mind you have.
Hardely - "Plunder is nowhere in your vocabulary"
Here is my reply to one of your comments back in 2014. You will note the reference to plundering....perhaps dementia sinking in Hardley?
2014:
Hardly – “But this clashes with the agendas of the rich and powerful elites in the north, who never see welfare of the poor as a priority”
And this is the true priority and ideology behind climate change, right Hardley? Fix the predictions by developing the poor undeveloped countries financed by the rich developed countries.
Of course, the thought of it being done in the most sustainable way possible won’t negate the fact that development on a global scale will still have the affect of increasing overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run……manufacturing, construction, transportation, imports and exports, infrastructure, shipping, consumption and on and on….and better health services will decrease death rates and increase life expectancy which will increase the global population putting more strains on the limited amount of earth’s resources….not that there is anything wrong with that.
So we must act now! The rich developed nations, who have created the problems that are predicted to happen, must send monies to the poor developed nations to fix the problems that are predicted to happen…by increasing CO2 emissions!
Fairness. Equality. Justice. They all trump CO2….but we need CO2 to get there.
After all, let’s not forget that the rich developed nations have only become that way by plundering the resources of the poor undeveloped nations without just compensation. It is their moral and legal obligation to make right the wrongs they have committed with their greed and over consumption…
Funny how it fit’s perfectly into the predicted climate change, predicted solution scenario…almost like it was made that way. Like a glove…
Of course, Jeffrey Sachs, Rajendra Pachauri, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, George Soros, NASA GISS, The Earth Institute, Saleemul Huq , the U.N. (with all of it’s affiliations) and media conglomerates such as AFP and CFI among countless other organizations and foundations would all agree…
Isn’t that right Hardley?
Wait for it….LOOK! A SPIDER!
Squirms. It squirms.
Luionel - "It totally lacks any contextual relationship to anything we have said. What a weird mind you have."
Right. Because showing a clip of Saudi's running from a flash flood, has a lot to do with homeowners taking down trees...got it.
Hardley, perhaps you should fill Lionel in on the spider you saw in Algonguin, you know, the one that proves the predicted future catastrophic-only climate scenarios are not predicted catastrophes, but indeed fact. Apparently Lionel has a hard time relating that to a clip of your home movies...
More squirms.
Speaking of squirming, I'm still waiting for Kampen to point to where his imagination came up with this gem:
Kampen - “Batties think that Niños are human-caused”
Oh wait, that's right, he was referring to himself as Battie:
Kampen - “El Niño’s are of course getting hotter and that is human caused”
Fun times at the Deltoid asylum.
As I said before, Betula is a right wing dumbed down Fox news loving idiot. Some of his ramblings - like the long one above - would be hilariously comical in their content were this dork not trying to be serious.
He actually believes that Sachs, Soros, the UN et al. are all closet left wingers aiming to secretly redistribute the world's wealth to the poor and needy. The fact that he somehow thinks John Kerry is to the political left (now that IS hilarious) is proof, if ever it were needed, that Betula inhabits his own little myopic conspiracy-addled world. What a clot.
What he suggests is that the rich nations are rich because of good, honest-to-God driven ingenuity, and that the poor are probably just too dumb or lazy to deserve their apparent share of the pie. He makes one salient point, however - that climate change is largely due to overconsumption in the north. What he doesn't quite get is that northern planners and elites have no intention of changing anything, since they think (1) they deserve their wealth and power, and (2) they are largely exempt from the consequences of inaction. In other words they like things just the way they are - with the US and its proxies plundering resources from the south, and for wealth to continue to be concentrated in the upper classes. Development of the south is nowhere on the agenda not because of climate change or environmental destruction, but because our corporate/state planners know that if the poor have the audacity to claim that they should be allowed to use their own resources for internal develoipment, then idiots like Betula and especially those who he panders to (the rich) will have to draw back immensely and in the process they will lose power and influence.
Listen, Betula, you brainless twerp, its not about sending monies to the poor nations - its about stopping the rapacious plunder of their resources to benefit western corporations and investors. Or just is it that you don't geddit? Aside from your crappy news media, have you ever read anything???? Oh, aside from the likes of Limbaugh or Liddy or Hannity? In my experience you really take the big prize for ludicrous simplicity.
Lionel, The truth is that one too many branches has fallen on poor Battie's noggin. Its turned him into a paranoid, right wing comedian who laughs at his own, stale humor.
What else can one say to a schmuck who says this, "Funny how it fit’s perfectly into the predicted climate change, predicted solution scenario…almost like it was made that way. Like a glove…"
Yes, Battie is into conspiracy theories. The big, bad UN and the left wing elites are all working in cahoots to make the US of A poor, to take away Battie's hard-earned dollars. They are making up everything about climate change to push a global development agenda.
This clown actually believes this stuff. He belongs in an asylum.
I think there's a new hiatus going on. Boring. It is about the yearly doubling of the daily precip record around Houston (5, 10, 20...).
On the one hand, Hardley is saying....."elites have no intention of changing anything, since they think (1) they deserve their wealth and power, and (2) they are largely exempt from the consequences of inaction. In other words they like things just the way they are – with the US and its proxies plundering resources from the south, and for wealth to continue to be concentrated in the upper classes"
On the other hand, Hardley is saying that anyone who states there is an attempt to change what he believes to be true, must be "into conspiracy theories"
Me - "After all, let’s not forget that the rich developed nations have only become that way by plundering the resources of the poor undeveloped nations without just compensation. It is their moral and legal obligation to make right the wrongs they have committed with their greed and over consumption…"
"Funny how it fit’s perfectly into the predicted climate change, predicted solution scenario…almost like it was made that way. Like a glove"
Thanks Hardley, you just confirmed everything I've been saying. It's about time.
Kampen - Do you think it is the heavy precipitation that is causing the future predicted droughts, or is it the predicted droughts that are causing the predicted future heavy precipitation?
Thanks.
Hardley - 'its not about sending monies to the poor nations – its about stopping the rapacious plunder of their resources to benefit western corporations'
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/the-100-billion-dolla…
"The principle is that richer countries were to blame for global warming and should move first to fix it -- and that they should help pay for changes in poorer nations "
"NGOs and developing countries say $100 billion isn’t enough. Academics at the London School of Economics in March said at least $400 billion is needed annually if global warming is to be halted"
Poor Hardley, too much time with his head in the soil...
Still talking bollocks betty?
Why? It's not going to convince anyone you know what the hell you're talking about.
"It’s not going to convince anyone you know what the hell you’re talking about"
Wow, if I were trying to convince the 4-5 lifers on this blog anything I would end up being a lifer myself. Trust me, I know those in the Deltoid asylum can't be reached.
I like to think of it as throwing food to the monkeys at the zoo, only after awhile, it gets boring watching them fling shit...
If you aren't, what the hell are you talking to us for, then????
Bored and unemployed?
There's Battie again, believing his corporate media word-for-word. Bloomberg this time. Its great to see how rags catering to the elite classes view international problems. Next it will be Forbes or the Washington Times. Even the NYT and Washington Post have become organs for elite power. Look at their supine support for the Iraq War - not a single editorial in the NYT leading up to the war said two little words: 'International Law'. Yet Battie swallows everything is corporate media says whole.
Nowhere does Battie mention that a shift to renewable energy and sharing technologies with the poor lands can deal cost-effectively with AGW. Therein lies the rub. We like to steal their resources but we don't like to freely share technologies that fall under the guise of 'intellectual property'. Battie seems to think that there are no alternatives to fossil fuels to help the south attain some equity.
As we all by now here no, he's a clueless schmuck.
Two typos: 'his' and 'know'.
And I second Wow's point. Seems like Battie is bored, unemployed and alone. Why else does he suddenly and inexplicably saturate this blog with his vile spew?
Aye! He probably coshed himself on the head when a tree bough he was chainsawing fell. That clip seems to have struck a nerve. An unlucky hit as he does not appear to have many functional brain synapses.
Fantala was just another record cyclone. For the entire Indian Ocean.
Let's go have that 860 hPa system for Miami.
Meantime, this looks like some asylum content got to govern there - but it is, of course, outright criminality: http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/coalition-wants-to-build-1-2gw-coal-pla…
The electorate wants this, as it clamoured for the multibillion loss connected to Peabody's demise.
#75, mu. Or, both. More water in the air, has to come from somewhere, shall come down somewhere.
Battie actually copied one dumb revisionist from over at Masters' - calling itself 'NativeSun' of all butt names available for a white guy, but of course never took care to read a reply.
Nice video featuring Richard Lindzen discussing where we are with "Global Warming"
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
A good counter to the "Alarm" from the usual suspects.
:)
Kampen - "Battie actually copied one dumb revisionist from over at Masters’ "
What does that even mean? I don't speak scrambled symbols...
Ah, this would be the appeal to authority fallacy that you berate others for, right, gitter?
Tell me, how do you know he's right?
Tell me, how do you know he’s right?
Who?
Who are you talking to?
Do you know what you're replying about?
How do you know anybody is right?
Cartesian logic does it for me.
Shouyld we infer anything from the fact you are asking this question, Betula?
"Shouyld we infer anything from the fact you are asking this question, Betula?"
The same thing you would infer when Wow asks it.
"Nice video featuring Richard Lindzen discussing where we are with “Global Warming”
Oh, GSW means the old guy who once had to admit before congressional testimony that he was receiving 2,500 dollars a day in consulting fees from the fossil fuel lobby, and who was featured in a leaked Western Fuels memo as far back as 1998 saying that the fossil fuel industries risked losing credibility if they relied on the same people to push their denial meme. So where are they 18 years later? Yup. Still replying on fossils like Lindzen, Ball, Singer, Spencer, Christy and the like.
Give the growing empirical evidence, with every month over the past 10 breaking records, its over for the deniers. Time to put Lindzen and the rest out to pasture.
"How do you know anybody is right?"
This is the last refuge for AGW deniers or downplayers.
We know that the planet is warming because of a little thing called evidence. For their part, the deniers have shifted from the 'It isn't happening' to a new meme: 'It's not so bad or might even be good'. Eventually, when the evidence continues to show that its a threat, they'll say, 'It's too late to do anything except adapt'.
This highlights their rank dishonesty. Anything goes as long as we don't change anything.
“How do you know anybody is right?”
By checking their claims against evidence.
Given your inability to say this simple fact, it is plainly obvious that you do not know how to verify the claims of others and therefore your belief of Lindzen's claims are based on no evidence whatsoever, since you did not know how to verify his claim.
“How do you know anybody is right?”, dudes, Battie has arrived.
As fodder perhaps!
But of course GSW, being the blinkered narrow reader living in a Murdoch type info' bubble has no idea of how Lindzen has made a prat of himself over recent years. Similar skewerings can be found at RealClimate, SkS and HotWhopper.
And JC (The Curry) has followed in his footsteps, or rather downward spiral flightpath but quicker, she is now flying sub-surface having crashed through awhile back.
Such are you're cheerleaders GSW, StuPid, Olaus and BirchyBark.
Mmmm #71 is a good post. Maybe a great one.
Which is not to say i fully concur. But by golly
JH outlines a paradigm well. Really well written.
Such stuff is like manna to denialists because it
seemingly confirms part of what they loosly and erraticly
suspect in their conspiracy ideations.
I feel it is an interesting correllation that a reasonable
path to conserve our biosphere is also likely to interfere
with the ongoing north/south relationship.
And its damn clear denialist northies in particular intensly
dislike this possible challenge to the exceptionalism they take for granted.
Im just not certain that economics and politics and trade are
central to furthering climate science, even if those systems
are vital in progressing from climate knowledge to climate action.
A longwinded way of suggesting climate science maintains a
strict distance from any political outcomes arising from it.
"Eventually, when the evidence continues to show that its a threat, they’ll say, ‘It’s too late to do anything except adapt’
Could someone please identify the part of that sentence that is based on something that was actually said, or something that isn't an assumption?
Thanks.
Wow - "your belief of Lindzen’s claims are based on no evidence whatsoever, since you did not know how to verify his claim."
Again - Could someone please identify the part of that sentence that is based on something that was actually said, or something that isn't an assumption?
Thanks.
Kampen,....I think I have unscrambled some of the symbols in your head!
If I were to say I hope Cairns is wiped out and then claim I only said it because I know you wished it (which is what you actually said).....wouldn't that prove that you actually wished I said it because you imagined it was for my own good?
That's it, correct? Help me here...
Shorter Li D @99 - "Hardley's post is a great one because it seemingly confirms part of what they loosly and erraticly
suspect in their conspiracy ideations...which it does"
Thanks Li D.
Betula, wake up man! Learn the various steps of denial! Twenty years ago AGW was called a 'doomsday myth' by contrarians. Then, as evidence grew showing that it was warming, it suddenly was 'natural', due to the sun. Then, when it appeared the warming was slowing, there was big ballyhoo among contrarians that there was a 'pause'. Now that the pause is over, its down to NOAA/NASA manipulating the data. Heck, the comedians over at WUWT are waiting for the next hiatus when the current El Nino gives way to La Nina. Its like the fellow on Skeptical science once said, along with Tim Lambert: global warming denial 'bingo'. The excuses are on a never ending board that shifts. Eventually, one day, when it becomes obvious that humans are the primary culprit, contrarians will throw in the towel and admit they were wrong, only it will be way, way too late. So adaptation will be the only remaining canard.
Contrarians are driven totally and utterly by their worship of right wing, corporate agendas. They see any action to deal with environmental problems as a threat to the profit maximizing capacity of the corporate sector, or, as Battie appears to think, as some nefarious left wing UN-orchestrated plot to take away our hard earned freedoms.
And why quote Lindzen? He became a laughingstock years ago after admitting he was on the corporate payroll. What GSW does is link one or two pieces from contrarians as if these outsider views negate a huge body of evidence and the views of the rank-and-file in science. Its like the Polar Bear studies he links to. There are 20 times as many in far bigger journals with very different conclusions, but the way GSW and other contrarians think is that it takes only one or two studies to dismiss a huge and much larger number of other studies.
In science this is called 'cherry picking' and Lomborg mastered the art. Scientists don't take it seriously, but clearly people like GSW and Betula do.
Shorter betty: "I don't like the words you used, so I'll substitute my own".
If you don't like the conclusions of the words you changed it to, then don't change them and make an argument, if you can, against the actual words stated.
"Again – Could someone please identify the part of that sentence that is based on something that was actually said"
Goodness. Not even YOU listen to you:
Should have been:
#2, why rehash the helluva job you did in the March thread?
Attribution of good is something you came up with. I guess you missed that point about wiping Cairns offn the map, but no wonder because I found it too trivial to mention. You see, this is about my good. You may find this unimaginable, but I don't care for your good. Which happens to be a reciprocal.
Hardley - "when it appeared the warming was slowing, there was big ballyhoo among contrarians that there was a ‘pause’
Acually, the contrarians on the IPCC called it a "hiatus"...
HArdley - "Eventually, one day, when it becomes obvious that humans are the primary culprit, contrarians will throw in the towel and admit they were wrong, only it will be way, way too late"
Too late to send more money?
Hardley - "Contrarians are driven totally and utterly by their worship of right wing, corporate agendas."
I thought this wasn't supposed to be a right or left wing thing, it was an elitist thing. So which is it?
Wowo - "If you don’t like the conclusions of the words you changed it to, then don’t change them"
Ok.
Li D - “Hardley’s post is a great one because it seemingly confirms part of what they loosly and erraticly
suspect in their conspiracy ideations"
Which it does.
Wow's answer to this...."How do you know anybody is right?"
Is to repost this....."How do you know anybody is right?"
Pure Genius.
'Acually, the contrarians on the IPCC called it a “hiatus”'
That was the small ballyhoo.
But, admittedly, it was among the worst coral killers of recent years. It made Paris a complete farce two years before the conference.
Paris already a complete farce in a much more damning aspect. Temps are above +1.5° C wt pre-industrial already.
#13, more like appraissal of a work of pop-art. A ready-made just for looking at. And again.
How do you know anybody is right? Impressive. Evergreen.
Simpleton! Too late to realise one cannot drink oil or eat gold and removing plastic waste alone from the oceans is a sysiphean task.
Kampen - "You see, this is about my good. You may find this unimaginable, but I don’t care for your good"
Well, then it's good I don't live in Cairns. What is your next target?
Miami.
860 hPa.
Here's why that is quite feasible (but didn't use to be, of course) - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=87898 .
Meantime, California, which is in the IDZ: burn.
Then, milleniumfloods for Holland, because I want to get some in my city, too. My home will be safe but I clamour for a view over the waters.
"Well, then it’s good I don’t live in Cairns"
For the people in Cairns, certainly.
So what?
Wow’s answer to this….”How do you know anybody is right?”
Is to repost this…..”How do you know anybody is right?”
No to repost this... #91 Betula
April 19, 2016
How do you know anybody is right?
..sheer moron from betty. All it can manage.
Hm, #19, I think Cairns would be quite happy with the addition of Battie. Toxic sludge seeks toxic sludge.
‘Acually, the contrarians on the IPCC called it a “hiatus”’
No, the morons who deny reality called it a "haitus", and the IPCC in dealing with what the idiots were talking about had to use the same word, else the morons wouldn't know what was being talked about.
They're not all that well stocked in the braincell department. It's on a timeshare.
re 21, well, the *toxic sludge* would like Betty there so as to look better (and more intelligent) in the comparison.
But the people there are probably happy they only have toxic sludge to deal with and not this thundering moron.
Good to see I'm not located in the vision you imagined I wished for...
Thanks for keeping me safe.
ME - Wow’s answer to this….”How do you know anybody is right?”
Is to repost this…..”How do you know anybody is right?”
Wow - No it's not, it's this....”How do you know anybody is right?”
Thank you Deltoid, you never let me down.
Kampen - "I think Cairns would be quite happy with the addition of Battie. Toxic sludge seeks toxic sludge."
More scrambled symbols ...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/350org/4036338464?ytcheck=1
"Wow – No it’s not, it’s this….”How do you know anybody is right?”
Thank you Deltoid, you never let me down."
No fuckwit (if you ever could fuck anything with its permission), it's
Recognise the name, retard?
Wow @22 ...a review :
Apparently the IPCC had to use the word hiatus, only so the people who they were talking to (who apparently said there was a hiatus) would know it was a hiatus they were talking about..
Again - Thank you.
Ah, I get it, betty, YOU'RE the scrambled symbol.
Fair enough.
I said it, and your answer was to repost what I said.
So what part of your continuous reposting is the answer?
Is it this part..."How do you know anybody is right?"
Or this part...."How do you know anybody is right?"
Or finally, is it this part..."How do you know anybody is right?"
#23 i can but agree.
What, then, can we take as a target for the Batty Bomb?
#26, re the pic. The coral is not about some pretty exotic fish and shells for some tourists to snorkle along thusly some dollars for hotels, schmucked up roundabout boats and the local 4X providers.
It is not even about some 10 to 15% of the planet's biodiversity.
The 'largest organism' of the planet is about oceanic and atmospheric chemistry, and about the ecosystems in the former that as a whole provide fish, shellfish, crab, lobster and cancer medicins to humanity.
This whole is at stake here. The chemistries involved constitute the fattest tail.
#28 is tasty too, salt added and all.
I could really drop a Batty Bomb on the IPCC for that.
Though technically true, it was less beautiful than Wow related in #22, in some IPCC chambers at least.
In the process of that debate, maybe some people came to understand that climate is a thermodynamic system in which the air is but a few percent part of. If there even were a lower atmospheric 'hiatus', it is like the temp hiatus in a glass of tonic w/ ice (on a New Delhi day at 51° C). Sometheeng geeves. Air temp rise inhibited, then extra ice must melt and extra isothermal drop must ensue in the oceans.
A lot of work (thermodynamically speaking) went into melting ice, Arctic, Greenland, Antarctic, Alps, Andes, Himalaya, all 5000 or so Alaskan glaciers (yeah, but four, but four - as yet) during the, let's fuck the word over then, 'hiatus'.
You REALLY have to check the room the children are playing in when they fall silent.
"I said it,"
OK, then you are answered.
DO try to keep up batty, otherwise the answer would be "No, but not because we're not trying, you're just too fucking dense".
"Wow @22 …a review :
Apparently"
A word you use without knowing its meaning.
"only so the people who they were talking to (who apparently said there was a hiatus) would know iwhat it was about"
YOU morons called it a haitus. Saying "this haitus is a fallacy", that does NOT mean it exists even if it's named.
I mean, look at your lunacy here.
You're saying "That hiatus is real because I called it a hiatus". And when someone says "That hiatus is just because you cherry picked a start year, it doesn't exist", YOU assert that because they also used the same word, it means the hiatus is real.
Do you realise how DUMB that is?
Or do you not care in the least?
If you don't realise how dumb that is, then there's no point actually trying to answer you whinging in anything like a reasoned manner, since it's never going to be comprehended by a mental institution such as yourself.
cRR, there was never a hiatus, there's absolultely no evidence for it in the record AT ALL.
See
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/a-pause-or-not-a-pause-that-is-…
The reasons you give are why it may have "looked" like a haitus, if you screwed up your eyes and hoped hard, but there's absolutely no evidence for it in the actual record.
Wow - "You’re saying “That hiatus is real because I called it a hiatus”.
Never happened. All I said was the IPCC called it a hiatus, the rest is in you mind.
Wow - "And when someone says “That hiatus is just because you cherry picked a start year, it doesn’t exist”, YOU assert that because they also used the same word, it means the hiatus is real"
Wrong again. This from the IPCC AR5 -
"However, the implied rates of warming over the period from 1986–2005 to 2016–2035 are lower as a result of the hiatus: 0.10°C–0.23°C per decade, suggesting the AR4 assessment was near the upper end of current expectations for this specific time interval."
Carry on.
"Wow – “You’re saying “That hiatus is real because I called it a hiatus”.
Never happened. "
Yes, that's what I'm saying: the hiatus never happpened.
"Wrong again. This from the IPCC AR5 "
Wrong again.
There was no hiatus. The discussion was to retards like you telling you that there was no such thing.
That's even what that section is saying.
Wow - "YOU morons called it a haitus"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/abs/501318a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7467/abs/nature12534.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2531.html
And none of them show a haitus actually exists, they just use the term to denote the "feature" you morons made up so they can explain how it isn't there.
Wow – “YOU morons called it a haitus”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/category/hiatus-in-global-warming/
#43, sorry Wow, some of 'us' proved to be morons there.
I know there was no hiatus and never was. When some of 'us', Nature, IPCC and some went to play the word I called it 'climate revisionist'.
What should have been done when they came up with 'hiatus' was not: take the term over. It was not: to even discuss it. The right response was to write 'fuck off'. But 'we' are soooooooooo nice and we keep talking to the thugs as if they are soooooooo nice somewhere deep down inside.
'to denote the “feature” you morons made up so they can explain how it isn’t there.' - there were a spate of articles including those in #41 that FUCKING ASSUMED it was there.
In the Land of the Blind One-eye is fucking pariah, Wow.
No, "hiatus" means stopping. Here's what you were talking about: a lower rate of increase.
Betty even quoted it for you:
At least we all agree that I didn't used the term "hiatus", except to point out that scientists did.
You see, that wasn't so difficult...
KAmpen - "But ‘we’ are soooooooooo nice and we keep talking to the thugs as if they are soooooooo nice somewhere deep down inside."
Unless they live in Cairns....then we aren't nice, and neither are they, because they are dead.
Good one.
If the commenter at #3 is going to quote a
comment or part of a comment by myself
I request that it is accurate in future.
If they wish to paraphrase me in their own
words what they think i mean i request it be done without quotation marks.
^^^^^ Thats #3 page 2. This page.
Li D - Sorry, that was corrected in #12...
I don't know what you think you are trying to prove Birch-Barker by fart-arsing around with words whilst the evidence grows that humans are causing multiple and multiple reinforcing problems on a large scale across the globe. The evidence is accumulating daily.
What is more, scientists have a high understanding of the extent of the problem and so do many of the world's leaders, even if the latter are trying to ignore it hoping it will go away.
"At least we all agree that I didn’t used the term “hiatus”,"
Ah. Nope. Again you never listen to yourself: see post #9
At least we all agree that there is no hiatus, though.
"except to point out that scientists did."
Nope again.
Denier morons did. And then to reply the word hiatus was used by the scientists telling you morons there was no hiatus.
#50
You are out of your fucking mind.
Onto other much more important things
i just despair at the scale of the current
negative impact on the GBR.
The largest living thing on the planet and
its being screwed over by mankind.
A total indightment on any enlightenment, any exceptionalism,
that man claims to have.
It dosnt fucking matter that we can go to the
moon if we do this shit.
Any notion of, ( was it Keating? Howard? ) clever
country is superceded by whats happening.
Just despair.
Could all the denier cunts just fuck off just
so public discourse can focus on whats really
important.
I dont mean from deltoid. From all public discourse.
Go and wank each other at steve goddards scum show
if ya need an outlet for self expression.
But stay out of parliment. Stay out of business.
Stay out of diplomacy. Stay out of sci... well
yas never were in science anyhow.
The GBR getting totalled in front of our eyes
and we just doing bugger all as a society.
Li D Australia.
Half the Barrier Reef is dead. Forever.
Trying to describe the devastation in fathomable ways but it is hard. I tried:
You drive 1500 km's across your continent to your planned holiday spot. On the way:
- One out of twelve trees seems healthy;
- Five out of twelve trees are barren except for a few branches (indicating probable death next year);
- Half of all trees is absolutely dead white wood;
- At least half of the undergrowth is dead, most of the rest is straw colour too;
- No birds to be heard;
- No butterflies, no flowers, almost no insects.
Even this scene unrolling bend after bend of the road to your vacation home only weakly touches on the extent of the Barrier Reef disaster.
And we didn't dare to think about the other 12,000 km of taiga lands. Or the rain forests. But they are quite near the same state.
Which took only a year to accomplish.
Another, totally another process that will probably yield some massive never seen phenomena.
http://www.aces.su.se/news/severe-arctic-ocean-acidification-via-permaf…
Ecology was a short-lived science indeed, now we begin scourgeology. Do we not, Jeff?
(note: I consider 'more goose eggs and grass to eat for the polar bears' as inb4)
Cold ocean acidification, that would really sink a sink.
"You drive 1500 km’s across your continent to your planned holiday spot"
http://www.blueytravel.com.au/WA_Kimberley_Devonian_NP.php
I don't think the silence here has to do with fathoming those two little bits of ocean massacre. That should take another year or dozen (call me Cassandra all the time).
cRR, you might be interested in some comments I've posted here:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/04/20/this-is-the-worst-coral-bl…
I suspect that there are three issues with the ongoing destruction of the Great Barrier and other reefs that are affecting the majority of people who still don't seem to get it.
The first is that there is at a planetary scale simply a huge inertia in physical climate systems, and most folk don't have the sensory equipment (or the intellectual nous) to perceive it. The trolls here are classic examples of such.
The second issue is that species and especially ecosystems can accumulate irreversible extinction debt whilst still appearing to be safe and fully functional: only the passage of time reveals the inescapable damage that was inflicted without sufficient notice or action being taken.
The third problem is that humans are fatally inclined to divest their analysis of danger to others, and group think can render everyone inert. Tamino has just posted a video that exemplifies this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C9nI4yPCAyE
These reasons are why the planet's fucked, and the only option that is left to humanity is just how fucked they're prepared to let the planet become just for the transient and ephemeral benefit of a few wealthy people having the privilege of retaining their wealth for just a little longer. It's ironic that had we gone as renewable as was possible two decades ago, the world would now have many more people living a higher standard of life, with a fairer distribution of wealth, and the environment in a far better/safer/sustainable condition.
And yet uninformed, ill-informed, ideologically psychopathic, greedy and selfish human refuse that is the corporate, political and ideological life in our society still have the capacity to almost completely mute humanity's action to mitigate.
The result is that evolution will have its way in the end, and it will likely sift out most of the human genome in the process, along with 25-75% of the higher taxa of global biodiversity.
Bernard - "a fairer distribution of wealth"
At least we all agree that this is the goal.
With all this new found honesty, there is really no need to argue anymore.
No, we can't.
This is nothing more than another of your trademark logical fallacy, oh Botryosphaeria-afflicted one. The goal is to not FUBAR the planet; a consequent benefit is the introducion of a more modern suite of technologies that permit economic autonomy to a greater proportion of the planet's people.
It's telling that in your desperation to avoid democratising more people's wealth you are also willing to completely fuck the planet and to cede your own personal freedom in the process in the name of the very same freedoms. I'm not sure which of your fallacious thinking is the most despicable: that you're happy to screw the biosphere, or that you're happy to incite conspiracies of apparent communist world domination in order to defend and promote your personal, twisted ideology.
And for what it's worth Betula, your namesake taxon is especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change - many stands of birch will suffer disease, shorted lifespans, and localised extinction over the coming decades as warming progresses, and especially in repsonse to occurence of heatwaves and drought.
Talk about own goal.
All this -
"It’s telling that in your desperation to avoid democratising more people’s wealth you are also willing to completely fuck the planet and to cede your own personal freedom in the process in the name of the very same freedoms. I’m not sure which of your fallacious thinking is the most despicable: that you’re happy to screw the biosphere, or that you’re happy to incite conspiracies of apparent communist world domination in order to defend and promote your personal, twisted ideology"
From this -
Bernard - “a fairer distribution of wealth”
Me - "At least we all agree that this is the goal"
It's amazing how ideology can control ones imagination, but can't back it up...
Don't worry Betula, with a concerted effort on your part and the guidance of people much better informed in science than are you, one day you may be able to beat the ideology that controls your imagination.
Lest that was not your intended meaning I repeat, in the face of your evident inability to comprehend even the most basic of rhetorical constructions...
The goal is to not FUBAR the planet; a consequent benefit is the introducion of a more modern suite of technologies that permit economic autonomy to a greater proportion of the planet’s people.
And yes, by "economic autonomy" and "democratising more people’s wealth" I mean (gasp!) "a fairer distribution of wealth” - if you can't stomach that concept then that's the problem of your own psychopathy, and not of a move to sustainable democracy. And it doesn't change the fact that I didn't claim that fairer wealth distribution was the goal of carbon emissions mitigation: once again, you're falsely attributing to me something that I most certainly did not say.
A link for Betula, with the repeated admonishment that this is about fixing the planet by mitigating human-caused global warming which, by the way, is not a hoax.
By golly the above exchange is frustrating to read.
I was trying to think up anologies for what Bernard J
is trying to say, even though it really not needed.
All it is is a type of synergy.
Its astounding how much resistance there is
to synergies. I battle daily against this resistance at work.
For example, if one wishes to corrosion proof a welded join
in steel thats elevated a couple metres one can embark
on a huge effort involving scaffolding ,shrouding, sandblasting,
painting, that is accompanied by attendant saftey, environmental, and time management and staffing issues.
Or one can go down new a technological path that erases
virtually ALL of those hazards and apply a coating from a
ladder with one employee ( instead of 10 ) that is completed
from start to finish in two hours ( instead of 5 days ) with
zero environmental and saftey issues arising from spent sandblast material, and horrible toxic paints,
ÀAANNNNNND it will last THREE TIMES AS LONG and be
far more resistant to damage,
why wouldnt ya go down this path and make
use of all the wonderful synergies?
Be fucked in the head not to.
And yet the company wont budge.
Its got a compulsion to do things the most ineffecient slowest
dangerous way.
Ineffecient and dangerous is the current energy paradigm.
Its just gotta be dragged kicking and screaming into
the 21st centry.
Now Li D is imagining a utopian job killer...to spread the wealth.
Perfect.
Oh my god!
Idjit!
In the hierarchy of controls
elimination is king. Most important.
If one eliminates unnessessary work,
then one eliminates unnessessary risk.
But nah, lets just keep doing dangerous
unnnessary shit for the heck of it, to keep
employment up. Idjit.
Its funny, but many of my coworkers say
" But Li, if we did that we stretch out the
work and we get more money "
Completely not getting that a good job
is done with best quality and best saftey completed
quickly so theres more time to drink piss or go on
picnics or make love with ones partner or do volunteer
work with red cross or restore a 65 Hillman Minx or
whatever.
Many of my coworkers are fucked in the head
from years of exposure to industrial paints,
and would agree with Betula on lots of stuff i bet.
Li D has a point - if we eliminate jobs, we are safer, the polar bears are safer and the undeveloped nations achieve the social justice, fairness and equality they are owed...
I think you should present your plan to Jeffrey Sachs at he Earth Institute....he can pass it on to the U.N. Secretary General and they can run with it...
And all will be good.
What a massive blatent misconstruing of my
words.
But why am i not surprised?
Because deniers cant read and cant think.
Misconstruing and a whole heap of conflation.
Li D - "What a massive blatent misconstruing of my
words"
I'm sorry, I thought you were presenting a solution to the predicted future catastrophic- only climate scenarios.....you know, development of the undeveloped nations paid for by the rich developed nations as compensation for plundering their resources. Social justice, fairness and equality....all achieved with a new "technological path that erases virtually ALL of those hazards and apply a coating from a ladder with one employee ( instead of 10 )".
In other words, job elimination.
I still think it may work...
No, i was presenting an analogy.
As i said i was in #sixty bloody seven.
You then carried on like a porkchop as
if my analogy was some kind of solution.
I havnt articulated any solutions.
If i do i will use the word solution and
then be open to critique.
Do ya get how you have fucked up in
your reading comprehension?
Bernard J thank you for that first link in #61.
Most of us are already on that page, but I don't think Barker will ever get there. If it ain't happening tomorrow or in his backyard it ain't happening at all.
I have had my eye off the ball whilst repairing the damage that Microsoft has caused here by forcing an update to Windows 10 against our will (and using a very underhand trick) on a perfectly functional computer system (about 2 years old) with a scanner and printer not even supported by the Windows 8.1 that is on my machine. This latter was also affected by the dreaded pop up windows and other issues. This latter machine is less than 12 months old and I have installed not free photo and graphic drawing software which may or may not work on Windows 10 and the recently acquired, not bottom end, printer is not yet supported by Windows 10.
So thank you Microsoft for once again being a right royal PITA! Are you really trying to persuade people to move to Mac or Linux? Which latter I have working here on one machine but it lacks the kind of software and hardware support I am after - sadly. But it did provide a route for my wife to access her email and other social media app's whilst her Win 7 box was FUBARed by MS!
Microsoft are totally irresponsible by forcing retirement of peripherals before their time.
Li D - "No, i was presenting an analogy"
And a damn good one.
Li D - "I havnt articulated any solutions"
No kidding.
Your point, betty?
Oh, you never have one.
Wow, the absence of actual squirrels has never prevented Betula from pointing at them.
Wow, birch brain does have a point, even if its utterly stupid. Our right wing tree branch conflates a fairer distribution of wealth with communism. Yes folks, that's the way clowns like Betula think. Its all a conspiracy! Orchestrated by the communists at the UN! They all wanna take away my tree pruning business and force me into poverty to support the poor! Dey is all communists!
Batty believes that the US of A deserves the right to loot and plunder the resources and raid the treasuries of other poor nations, and that maintaining vastly unequal shares of the planet's resource base as well as consumption patterns is not only fair, its the right thing to do. And anyone who points out the vile nature of this or even that it is plainly wrong is deemed a communist.
We all know the guy is an idiot. Well, we all except for himself and similar simpletons like GSW. They might as well be the same guy.
Hardley thinks I'm wrong by confirming I'm right, without stating anything I've actually said.
This is a first even for him!
If it looks like a squirrel, acts like a squirrel and sounds like a squirrel....it's squirrelly.
"Wow, birch brain does have a point, even if its utterly stupid. Our right wing tree branch conflates a fairer distribution of wealth with communism. "
Yeah, but it's a point like "A pencil has a point".
Hardly relevant or meaning anything.
"Hardley thinks I’m wrong by confirming I’m right,"
Nope, he said you had a point. Not that you were right.
The only thing right about Betula is his political bent, and that is only 'right' in the way that the Tea Party is 'right'.
Bernard J. #61, 'The second issue is that species and especially ecosystems can accumulate irreversible extinction debt whilst still appearing to be safe and fully functional: only the passage of time reveals the inescapable damage that was inflicted without sufficient notice or action being taken.'
This.
This kind of thing is true for many complex/connected systems and it is also the reason why we may achieve +4° C even if all human caused emissions cease. At over 400ppm that has to be the outcome.
A lot of modeling misses out on this phenomenon too.
It makes for very fat tails.
Cassandras live in hell-squared.
Batty likes jobs. Will be happy to step on the treadmill to provide humanity with renewable energy (if the Batty takes vegan only). A billion jobs there are thusly.
"Nope, he said you had a point. Not that you were right"
Not what I was referring to...but then again, you have comprehension issues, so coming from you it's understandable.
If Batties postings would generate energy it would for sure be expensive, non-renewable and hugely polluting. That wasn't the treadmill job I meant.
#77 - Never yet had Win 10 pushed on me here. Maybe they think I'm granny, working with Windows Vista Business (true story, and yes it has some peculiar issues) so have given up on me years ago.
Windows Vista Business. A draw on RAM but too paleo for infection.
Man I like this Li D. E.g. #67.
The compulsion factor.
Er, thanks.
Just viewed climate depot for the first time ever.
Redefines trashy.
Total dogshit.
#92 that's Morano, who in interviews is actually quite open about what he is doing: public relations lying for big fossil.
He can, because a relevant piece of the public dotes on his psychopathological lies.
Climate Depot is just another echo chamber. There's dozens of 'm around.
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
#93 that's Hoggan and Lefebvre, who actually are not quite open about what they are doing:
"DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre"
"James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science."
"John Lefebvre, the top financial benefactor of the DeSmog Blog, is facing substantial prison time after pleading guilty to federal money-laundering charges"
http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html
Fun times.
And this clown then links to irrelevant claptrap by Poptech, creating yet another smoke screen to add to that of the wildfires that swept across Canada and Alaska last year.
Of course the fruit cakes like to take a pop at DeSmog and its founders so let us get it cleared out of the way:
From Wikipedia:
Note the wording. Whatever how is that relevant to the exposure o0f the likes of Exxon with there multidecadal campaign of distorting the message (aka lying about, through their paid for prostituted one time scientists) about global warming coming from the science, even their own in house science. That you should point a finger at Lefebvre in this way is morally repugnant.
Betula, you sir, are a first class A-hole!
Ooops>:
Whatever how is that relevant to the exposure of the likes of Exxon with their multidecadal campaign of distorting the message
"That you should point a finger at Lefebvre in this way is morally repugnant."
And here I thought being a convicted criminal was morally repugnant. Of course, this is Deltoid...
#97, convicted?
And how is gambling illegal? God forbid?
There are people who really believe the truth value of any statement depends on who utters it.
It is a symptom of thinkfright.
#97, convicted?
Sorry, I thought spending 45 days in jail meant he was convicted of something.
Please remember, I'm just a visitor here at the Deltoid asylum, and not a permanent resident like you...
Well it is beginning to look like you have a season ticket.
Besides you have committed logic fail - argument by false equivalence. Lefebvre broke some small law maybe inadvertently but there is nothing inadvertent about fossil fuels campaign of lies with deadly consequences.
Strange thing about logic...I don't remember mentioning Exxon, or any other oil company for that matter.
But just for you, here's one about Exxon and Shell:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/19/3751279/shell-climate-inves…
It looks like James Hoggan needs to do a better job serving Shell, who is one of his clients:
http://www.hoggan.com/clients
"For more than 25 years we have been helping corporations, organizations and individuals communicate credibly—helping them to understand their audience, frame their story and communicate in a manner that builds trust and engagement"
http://www.hoggan.com/hoggans-strategy-success
Well, visiting hours are almost over. Soon, only the Asylum regulars will be around...and this blog for the most part will remain silent, except for the occasional sound of drool hitting the floor.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/04/sensor-on-f-17-experiencing-…
Jeff Harvey
June 28, 2013
"To extrapolate simple linear conclusions that C02 is an atmospheric fertilizer like Betula and other simpletons do is therefore utter drivel"
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004…
Thus the name....Hardley.
I think Betula has a simplistic idea of what the CO2 fertilisation effect is and what it entails.
Maybe Betula could read this in order to get a better understanding into why a systemic understanding is so much more important than latching onto tid-bits of information devoid of context:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AdM_AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq…?
That was 1987.
No further information in the 29 years since then has done anything to make these identified risks worthy of simple dismissal.
That's 29 years of geological, geochemical, and ecological research together 29 years'-worth of accumulating data and computing power, throwen at this issue, without solving it yet.
In the other corner we have the likes of James Delingpole and Betula who cling to their faith-based do-nothing ideological blinkers, no matter what reality is telling us.
The sad thing is, even though the second-last laugh is going to be on idiots like Delingpole, the last laugh will be on the species responsible for the current extinction event which is gaining momentum with every year of Denial that passes.
Oh Betula, Betula, why for art thou Betula so fricking dense?
You have been informed time and time gain about the disruption of ecosystem penology where a lengthened growing season for some plants mean that their flowers (or other seats of pollination) mature before the fauna that they rely upon for fertilisation arrive because they react to photo-period and not temperatures.. With dire effects on the fauna and also the flora.
One study such as you cited tells us nothing about that.
Read E.O.Wilson,
also Richard Pearson
and
Thomas E Lovejoy et. al..
You are still stuck on the gathering information stage I see with those of knowledge, understanding and wisdom yet to come, which latter I fear is a jump too far for you.
Nice pitch at #5 Craig, I may just have a closer look at that one.
Betula of course would not understand the message.
#100 - Spending time in jail does not imply having been convicted. Anyway, 1 + 1 = 2 even if a convicted felon says it, thinks it or forgets it.
You're more than just a visitor here. A certain fondness of you has grown here and you like to bask in this warmth of attention. Couldn't blame anyone for that.
"You’re more than just a visitor here"
No Kampen, like always, I show up for a few weeks or so every year or two, get bored with the patients and walk away.
The difference is...I walk away.
Then, maybe in a year, I'll peak my head in the asylum and see the same names at it....day in and day out, solving nothing, getting nowhere, blaming everyone but themselves, predicting the future as if it's fact, seeing a catastrophe in every spider and raindrop, and believing they are Cassandras.
I will feel sorry for them at first, then for amusement I will use their own words so they can argue about what they said, all the while thinking I said it. Their ideology will guide their imaginations, they will create a vision in their heads to justify their thoughts, they will imagine words that were never said and they will ask questions designed to guide one to a single imaginary answer...
The Deltoid Asylum, where everyday is a pending catastrophe. If you live here, you would be home now...
Betula, with every post you put up here its easy to see why you never pursued a career as a scientist. Tree pruning is about as good as you'll ever get. You copy-paste links to articles that you don't even understand. Its all simple linear dynamics in your addled brain. The so-called fertilization effect is a classic example. What does extra plant biomass mean in terms of plant quality? Fitness? Consumers associated with plants? Stoichiometry? You are so dense that you just think that bigger is better. So let's keep pumping out C02 as many - though certainly not all - plants will soak it up and grow larger as a result. Its like saying that some obese slob who weighs 200 kg is healthier than a guy who weighs 75 kg. Quality just does not register in your simple, linear world. The fact that ecosystems function non-linearly is so far beyond your comprehension that I might as well be texting to an ameoba. You have your elementary knowledge of science ad you go with that as if you are an expert.
You cannot stand in the same building as me as a scientist in terms of knowledge and experience, let alone the same room, but you are so utterly deluded in your silverback mentality that you think you can. You have not even abandoned this absurd C02-fertilization meme after it has been shown to be oversimplistic drivel. Some of the other examples you have posted up here of healthy ecosystems are utterly laughable.
You are the kind of idiot who wouldn't believe anything was wrong until your car careened off a cliff. Even then, you'd probably smile for a few seconds until your car blew to smithereens when it hit the rocks below. There's a huge amount of evidence that natural systems are is serious trouble. The very fact that 25% of vascular plants, 30% of reptiles and amphibians, 13% of birds, and a huge number of marine organisms are threatened with extinction doesn't worry you at all. If you have kids, which I think you probably do, they'll be happy to know that their dad was part of a generation pushing nature to the brink while smiling away ignorantly claiming that 'it is all projection! Nature's just fine, even as we see it dwindling before out eyes'.
The deleterious effects of climate change alone on species, populations and ecological communities is very well documented. The Millennium Ecosystems Assessment shows that humans and nature are on a collision course. You just don't read or understand any of it and dismiss the implications down the road. But heck, you think snakes are vermin, so why would a big, allegedly clever dude like you think anything different?
You are a sad person Betula. Its just too bad that there are plenty of like minded simpletons like you out there with like-minded views.
Hardley - "You are so dense that you just think that bigger is better"
Now all you have to do is show where this was stated or assumed. Be specific.
That fact that you can't, makes all the other aspects of your comment a continued part of your ideologically driven imagination.
Sad, but expected.
"You have not even abandoned this absurd C02-fertilization meme"
CO2-fertilization isn't a "meme"; Gravity isn't a "meme". To the extent it is possible to "Know" something, they are "Known". For those who can't read, choose not to read, the nature paper above, BH has a shortform here - http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/4/27/told-you-so-josh-372.h…
The most important issues with Carbon Fertilisation are:
- it is a negative feedback for inclusion in CO2 cycle models
- interesting things happen to the biochemistry of some edible plants when CO2 increases.
So of course now plants need no water anymore.
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/04/27/climate-change-drives-half-a-bil…
cRR
WRT Robert Scribbler's piece, Lomborg should hang his head in shame, along with all others who make out the effects of a few degrees rise in temperature are not on balance disastrous. So much for things getting better.
That map of course does not include those on the margins of so called Western societies. Bigger crops are not necessarily more nutritious, more bulk means any vital elements may be spread more thinly and require the digestion of a tougher containing structure. Returns on energy invested in consuming the crops diminish.
Wish I could force feed Pat Michaels some of the nectarines that have recently appeared in UK shops. They were hard with inconsistent flesh and tasted of mutton. I ended up putting them out for the birds and even they refused them.
Lomborg & ilk will get their due. A couple of billion people will know and understand what they did. Their future is bleak.
@!3 I see Kampen pulling out the "peer reviewed"
Robertscribbler blog....Impressive.
"Scribbling for environmental, social, and economic justice"....yes, it always seems to come right back to "social justice.".
Send the poor nations money and the heat waves caused by the excessive rain/flooding will disappear forever. Perfect.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/early-…
@14 - "Wish I could force feed Pat Michaels some of the nectarines that have recently appeared in UK shops. They were hard with inconsistent flesh and tasted of mutton"
Hey Hardly, Lionel has you beat....he tasted climate change first hand!
#16 - your future is bleak.
#17 too cheap again.
Betula, as is always the case with you, your thinking is egregiously logically fallacious. Robert Scribbler is summarising studies that have already been peer-reviewed and published: he is not presenting data/analyses de novo that have not been verified.
Once again you engage in fishing for red herrings in a sea of misrepresentation. You're really just not very good at critical thinking. Either that, or you understand exactly that you are peddling crap, but do so simply because you are pushing your denialist tripe.
#20 - Batty understands exactly it is peddling crap. The hard thing might be that I happen to understand the exact same thing. I'd like to see some upgrades on Battie's level of trolling, because it can, which is why #19.
Bernard - "Betula, as is always the case with you, your thinking is egregiously logically fallacious. Robert Scribbler is summarising studies that have already been peer-reviewed"
Poor Bernard, doesn't like the taste of Deltoids home made Kool-Aid:
March Pg4 #89 GSW links this -
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/global-warming-induced-fertili…
March pg4 #90 Hardley responds -
"And note where GSW gets his source. The National Post. Anything therse right wingnuts can do to argue that we need to keep polluting, slashing, burning, and assaulting nature for profit"
Look at that HArdley, according to Bernard, "as is always the case with you, your thinking is egregiously logically fallacious", the Post was "summarising studies that have already been peer-reviewed"
I love it when the Deltoidians argue with each other without realizing it. That's why I keep coming back...
'In the Equatorial and near-Equatorial regions of the world, nations are particularly vulnerable to the stress of rising temperatures. There, soil moisture is already tenuous in many regions. As temperatures rise, rates of evaporation increase and marginal areas can rapidly fall into drought.'
But along comes Battie with a bucket of dried cow manure.
Also, I promise I won't mention that nowhere in Kampen's peer reviewed blog does it provide a source proving a direct link between any drought and made global warming, or a source providing proof of a solution to fix the problem it can't prove. Though personally, I believe sending money will fix it.
Bernard to Betula: "You’re really just not very good at critical thinking. Either that, or you understand exactly that you are peddling crap, but do so simply because you are pushing your denialist tripe"
I vouch for the fact that Betula is too blatantly ignorant to understand anything about the fields he comments on including the difference between plant quality and quantity. He looks at two plants, and if they look the same to his untrained, biased eye, they are the same. C:N:P ratios are unimportant, allelochemistry is just a word, and effects of these up the food chain are irrelevant. If plants soak up more C02 and grow larger, that's enough for his simple brain.
Betula is also blatantly dishonest. The very fact he posted a link to the Nature paper was to suggest that C02 fertilization is a good thing and to therefore downplay this component of AGW. When called out on it, he backtracks with the riposte, 'Duh! I never said that! You are all imagining it!'.
Then there's this howler as usual from him: " Send the poor nations money and the heat waves caused by the excessive rain/flooding will disappear forever. Perfect".
Whereas its perfectly alright in Betula's view for the rich nations to plunder capital and resources from these same countries. Why is this? because Betula doesn't think its happening. In his view, the poor world is poor because of bad luck of bad genes, and the rich nations are rich because of the opposite; they therefore have nothing to atone for. He doesn't say it, but it bleeds through in everything he writes.
What an idiot.
"But along comes Battie with a bucket of dried cow manure"
cRR, Betula wallows in so much cow shit that he thinks the same way. Scientists call it local adaptation.
Of course Battie in #24 wouldn't mention never having checked for sources. But why would Battie mention that? Because Battie?
#26, well, I choose my metaphors with some care..
Is this the same Professor Hardley who's "thinking is egregiously logically fallacious” as shown in #22?
Let's look at your "thinking":
@#25 you state - "The very fact he posted a link to the Nature paper was to suggest that C02 fertilization is a good thing and to therefore downplay this component of AGW. When called out on it, he backtracks with the riposte, ‘Duh! I never said that! You are all imagining it!’.
You are imagining it, because I never said it was "a good thing". If I did, you would show us all when and where I said it. You can't copy and paste your imagination...
The purpose of posting the paper was to show that CO2 does have a fertilization effect and you don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing, yet you pretend you do.
Read the paper, does it say it's a good thing? Does it say it's a bad thing? Did I say it's a good thing?
It seems you need to imagine what was said in order to satisfy your ideological narrative of what you think it is I think...
Keep it up Moron, you're the best.
'..because I never said it was “a good thing”.' - No, you didn't say it. You suggested it, as Jeff said you did, as you just quoted. You read 'suggested' as 'said', well ha ha.
Hardley - "Whereas its perfectly alright in Betula’s view for the rich nations to plunder capital and resources from these same countries. Why is this? because Betula doesn’t think its happening"
Again... all made up, all in your imagination, which seems to have taken total control of your thought process.
Aren't you the least bit worried?
Betula, once again you don't grasp the context of statements:
No go read that again and discover just what was under discussion at that point.
Sheeesh! I have come across some dumb trolls of late but you have them beat hands down on the stupid.
Hardly, Battie. Hardly.
#31, I thought that one over and decided Battie was right there, in a way.
Betula once again you demonstrate the limits of youre understanding
Sending money to many arid regions, e.g. in the Indian sub-continent will not replace the water in deep aquifers that have been mined by global conglomerates such as Pepsi-Co and Co-Co-Cola to turn water into tooth and gut rot acids.
Some in other parts of the world want to continue wasting precious water by a process known as fracking.
Some of these same people have just voted down a 'Dubs' amendment to a bill in parliament so that the children of refugees that have arrived in the UK are left to fend for themselves in Europe and some how avoid the sex and drug traffickers.
I note that some persist in describing the refugees as economic refugees which is only partly true for the other part is the drought highlighted in Robert Scribbler's post, the post that you Betula are too blinkered to grasp the wider meanings of, read some of the comments below that article.
The point of not resettling 3000 unaccompanied children is that it would send out a very clear message to parents that it might be worth taking the gamble of sending their children off on people-smuggling boats by themselves.
That message could turn the 3,000 into 30,000, then 300,000.
And who would take them? Nobody. More deaths at sea, more poverty and exploitation of the sans-papiers.
In any case, the UK certainly doesn't need anymore invaders from the East.
The thing that makes them economic migrants is the fact that they are leaving "safe refuges" (as per the Convention) and seeking "better refuges", an activity that is specifically identified in the Convention itself as non-compliant behaviour on the part of refugees.
Now Battie is backtracking again, claiming that he doesn't cite the Nature article because he thinks C02 fertilization is a good thing.
Liar.
Last year he argued that greenhouses were good proxies for nature, because crop plants grow amok under concentrations of 1000 ppm C02 that are pumped into them. I have been arguing all along that biomass does not equate to quality, and that other stoichiometric indices have to be considered. Moreover, given that natural systems function non-linearly, there are all kinds of nasty effects that wil emerge based on changes in plant tissue chemistry. Battie copy-pastes links like the Nature paper to intimate that natural systems can effectively deal with increased atmospheric C02 concentrations, otherwise he wouldn't do it. And of course he ignores temperature-related effects.
Yup, the guy is a liar. Thinks he's playing mind games here, but he's too dumb for that. It is pretty clear what he is trying to say. Remember his post about how well NA ecosystems are allegedly doing on the evidence of three piss-poor examples. Far better ones are epidemic declines in songbird abundance, including once abundant species like Eastern Towhees (down by 95% since 1980), Eastern Meadowlarks, Loggerherad Shrikes and many others. He's a right wing climate change denier who baits and switches routinely.
That is arse backwards to the situation under discussion.
To call camps where children will be open to the worst forms of abuse as 'safe havens' then that is a contradiction of terms.
Besides, why are these people being displaced? Because of a history of geo-politics which affected the broader region especially that of the last 100 years. Sykes-Picot being an example.
#35.
One of Craig's 'safe refuges', which enjoyed three weeks of 50-53° C last year: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/An_Aerial_View_of_t… .
Lost people without a future.
Bankfrauding and tax evading UK needs to be replaced by people from the east. That would actually make for some world peace (the UK people would be locked up on Tasmania just as they did with the Tasmanians. Who are no longer in existence because of that).
Jeff, that's Battie.
---
Don’t you just hate it when you’re arguing with people who make really good points and leave you absolutely no rejoinder? Wouldn’t it be nicer if you could just invent dumb stuff for them to say and then make fun of them when they do?
Welcome to the last rhetorical refuge of the climate-change denier.
- Jeffrey Kluger, Ideas, Time, Apr 28, 2016
--
Here is the link you wanted cRR.
Thanks Lionel, I could've guessed Battie wouldn't provide it.
Hardey, it's already been noted that your "thinking is egregiously logically fallacious", but now you come up with this: "Yup, the guy is a liar"
What is sad is that you haven't linked any of my words to a lie, and just for the record, your imagination doesn't count as a lie on my part...
You should be concerned.
" In the case of the Medieval Warm Period it was an increase in solar activity and a decrease in volcanic activity; in the case of the Little Ice Age it was principally a decrease in solar activity. The scientists know this and repeatedly say this."
To be sure, the solar factor has been found to be minimal. It is mainly about volcanism.
Oh Batty Battie dear...
Hey Batty, we're in a conversation here. Don't interrupt.
Jeffrey Kluger - "Wouldn’t it be nicer if you could just invent dumb stuff for them to say and then make fun of them when they do?"
He doesn't need to "invent" it....he already said it:
Jeffrey Kluger - "How Climate Change Leads to Volcanoes (Really)"
Now he can make fun of himself.
That was easy.
Proof, if ever any was needed, that Betula is an out-and-out liar:
He recently linked to a new paper in Nature alluding to the so-called fertilization effect of increased C02 on forest biomass. His comment at the end was aimed at me - intimating that I have at some point denied that plants accumulate more carbon and grow bigger as a result of increased atmsopheric C02 concentrations.
So prove it Barkie. Look up a post where I denied that increased C02 made many (though not all) plants grow larger. You'll have a hard time as I never said it. I have maintained since your comedy post trying feebly to draw a correlation between closed greenhouse conditions and natural systems that plant fitness is based on a whole lot of things besides carbon and total biomass. And that changes in plant stoichiometry as a result of soaking up more C will generate significant effects on primary and secondary metabolism that will affect plant mutualists and antagonists, such as pollinators and herbivores. The data are already showing that - N is limiting for many herbivores, therefore they eat more as N is shunted out of plant tissues when C increases. Furthermore, many plants have N or C based secondary metabolisms. Plants with C based defenses may become a lot more toxic whereas the opposite is true for plants with N based defenses. Now I know this is all over Barkie's pin-sized noggin, but it throws a spanner into his simple linear/quantitative world. To reiterate, the only reason Barkie cited the Nature paper at all was to somehow counter an argument that I never made. Then he says that he never said that bigger plants are not fitter. Fine. So why put the paper up here in the first place? Another in a long line of owl goals by our resident tree pruner.
He is not only an idiot, but a liar as well. Seems like he is a pretty repugnant individual when it comes down to it.
now I am insulting owls... infinitely smarter than birch bark.
"Now he can make fun of himself"
That's a bit rich, coming from a semi-literate tree pruner with his head stuck up the wrong oriface. Kiluger's article is excellent. If anyone is making fun of themself, Barkie, it's you. You inhabit your own asylum. Deltoid is not necessary.
#48 that was some blaming of victims indeed Jeff. Insulting the wise, how COULD you!!
There now: https://www.facebook.com/HeartCenteredRebalancing/videos/13635728236565…
Hardley - "So prove it Barkie. Look up a post where I denied that increased C02 made many (though not all) plants grow larger. You’ll have a hard time as I never said it"
So now I'm supposed to prove something I never said about what you said? You're still the best Hardley...
Try reading #28 again, particularly this sentence:
"The purpose of posting the paper was to show that CO2 does have a fertilization effect and you don’t know if it’s a good thing or bad thing, yet you pretend you do."
Hardley - "Kiluger’s article is excellent"
This is the part where the professor teaches the class just how climate change creates volcanoes.
Please pay close attention class, and take plenty of notes so you "can make fun them" in future comments...
Battie fix that record.
@ #50 - The link states it is a rescued owl. It's not.
Wise up.
#54, I had already guessed you couldn't see what that was about, Battie. Iow, it was a bit of a trap (again). Because the phenomenon is just too strange for you. You need a long hug and some real sex, do you not?
It is not a sin to be lonely. But don't take it out on others, because that only makes it worse.
Kampen - "You need a long hug and some real sex, do you not?"
Thanks for the offer Kampen but I'm not gay. Been happily married to my wife for 20 years...
My brother is gay though, and currently single. But I don't think you two would get along, he's was a Force Recon team leader in the U.S.Marine Corps - might be a little rough for you.
The joke is on you dipshit Betula.
Climate change can indeed lead to volcanism and other seismic events but you have to have studied geology and paleogeology to begin to grasp that.
Here is a pointer 'Waking the Giant' by Bill McGuire on Climate change will shake the Earth.
Talk about ignorant and the wilfully ignorant such as Betula.
#56, I'm gay. As in: happyyyyy.
Also, I get on quite well with professional toughies. How could you possibly know anything about me... Ah, because I'm telling you.
Incidentally, have you ever kissed her?
I'd get on well with your brother, really. He's doubletough. How can such a person be brainwashed like you?
Kampen - "How could you possibly know anything about me…"
Yet, I hit the nail on the head.
But why does it always have to be your toenail oh simple one?
"The joke is on you dipshit Betula"
No simpleton, because you have imaginary scenarios, it doesn't mean you have fact based scenarios:
"Still, Siebert and Lowenstern stress that the relationship between melting glacier ice and increased volcanism is far from cut-and-dry."
"It's a lot more complicated because ice is melting in one place, and the water is going somewhere else," Lowenstern said, "So you might have a decrease in pressure in the northern latitudes as a result of ice melting, but you also might have an increase in the ocean depths in the south that might keep magma from erupting. And even then, it's not a simple relationship between increased pressure and decreased volcanism."
"Several other factors also influence the planet's volcanism, some of which scientists don't fully understand. So while a few studies predict future climate change may generate a rebound effect, climate typically plays an indirect role"
"Volcanism typically influences climate," Lowenstern said, "not the other way around."
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/are-volcanic-eruptions-i…
Lionel - "But why does it always have to be your toenail oh simple one?"
Because in this case, I happened to kick it through the goal post...
Well I got news for you dumbase, and I don't give a flying-fart what 'Siebert and Lowenstern stress', have you never heard of isostatic rebound?
The isostatic effects of melting of ice sheets at the end of the last glaciation are still being witnessed. This is one reason behind supposed discrepancies in assessing sea level rise.
Read McGuire and also Hunt Janin and Scott A. Mandia.
But this has been put in front of you dullards here many times over the last decade.
You really are a class crass act!
#60 what else could Battie possibly do than bat his own foot there. It hurts, so bat again. And again cause it hurts so.
Do I imagine a slight anti-gay bias in Battie, there, in #59 and what it purports to respond to? Or perhaps it's just antiowlism (especially loving owls).
"The isostatic effects of melting of ice sheets at the end of the last glaciation are still being witnessed."
Indeed. Sea level drops preciptously at the Lofoten, Norway. Rises double earth average rate on the Carolina's. Is all rebound.
Rebound is very measurable, including new rebound - e.g. Greenland, parts of the Antarctic. It provides an indepent measure for ice sheet loss (using GRACE sat data).
Kampen - "Do I imagine a slight anti-gay bias in Battie"
Imagination is all you have. No surprises there.
Lionel - "I don’t give a flying-fart what ‘Siebert and Lowenstern stress"......"Read McGuire and also Hunt Janin and Scott A. Mandia"
Lowenstein - http://profile.usgs.gov/jlwnstrn
Mandia - https://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/happy-halloween-from-the-ca…
Good stuff, thanks.
Betula - do try to understand the wider tectonic forces at work which can indeed be influenced by climate change, Lowenstern's [note how you screwed up the spelling] comments are in a very narrow sense and Kluger's article was essentially correct.
Trouble is the Dunning-Kruger in you prevents you discovering that.
Now visit that Mandia page again and note the thumbnail of a book cover at the right, fin a copy of that and read it as I pointed to previously and stop throwing squirrels into the discussion. We had a title in the service for people like you - crap artist. They could, so I heard, on occasion find themselves going for an impromptu early hours float test.
"Been happily married to my wife for 20 years"
Given how brazenly stupid you are, shouldn't we ask her for her opinion?
Moreover, I want to ask you again, you lying dork, why you linked to the Nature paper? At the end you added some bullshit comment about me as if the results contradict what I have said before. There's your lie, in simple black and white. You put it up here because you wanted to intimate that increased biomass linked with increased atmospheric C02 is on balance a good thing. Now you are backtracking as you often do when your crap is exposed.
The Nature paper says nothing about qualitative changes in plant tissues. Get that through your head, Battie. And nowhere do the authors downplay the seriousness of AGW. Like GSW and other deniers, you constantly scrape the barrel to cite studies that you don't understand anyway.
With respect to Lowenstein, its interesting that, again like GSW, you readily copy-paste the web site of scientists you like, as if that vindicates you, but when someone with equal or greater qualifications says something you don't like, then they are smeared or ridiculed or ignored. Hansen, Mann, Trenberth, Mahlmann, et al. are all regularly attacked by the deniers despite their outstanding scientific pedigrees in climate science. In ecology, you even try and take me on, although my 173 career papers and 4800 citations is miles ahead of your 0 and 0 respectively. Given my professional training, its easy to see that most of your comments are basal and simplistic. You've never studied the field but in true Dunning-Kruger fashion, you think that doing some job outdoors equips you with the intellectual acumen of people who bothered to study the relevant fields at university.
Once again, you are a complete and utter hypocrite.
Sprog! Neophyte! Cap on your head with a big read 'L' behind and a 'D' in front.
Hardley - ":Moreover, I want to ask you again, you lying dork, why you linked to the Nature paper?"
Your ideology seems to be impairing your actual vision and hearing, yet at the same time, enhancing your imaginary vision and hearing...
Poor Hardley, still can't copy and paste his imagination.
What I have always said, from the beginning, it that you don't know what role CO2 Fertilization will play, and what weight it carries in the predicted future catastrophic-only climate scenarios. Just because you believe it can only be a bad thing, you imagine I suggested it can only be a good thing.
The imaginary lie you are seeing is your imaginary problem, not mine.
Hardley's oration - "Humanity faces many daunting challenges in the coming decades in order to reduce poverty and create social justice while at the same time ensuring that the health and vitality of our ecological life support systems are maintained."
https://nioo.knaw.nl/en/news/jeff-harveys-oration
How interesting.... Hardley uses science to steer public opinion towards his views about social justice and redistribution of wealth by lecturing about the problems of using science to steer public policy toward pre-defined world views:
"will focus on the problems generated when politicians, corporate leaders and other public figures use “science” to steer public opinion towards pre-defined world views or political agendas"
http://www.auc.nl/news-events/events-and-lectures/content/lectures/wit-…
Apart from the fact that your "thinking is egregiously logically fallacious" and you have spiders in the belfry, we can now add hypocrite to the list.....which keeps growing.
Well done Hardley, you still remain my favorite patient to visit at the Deltoid Asylum...
There is a difference between belief and understanding.
We understand but you never will by being stuck at the information gathering stage as is evident by your continued pulling up stuff that you think supports your case when in fact the opposite is true.
Either by linking to a red herring or your misunderstanding of the science underpinning whatever study it is you think backs you up.
That is your fate from here on in unless of course you have an infusion of understanding for you clearly are not going to get there on your own.
You are the one in the padded cell crying 'look what I have found' all the time.
Lionel - "evident by your continued pulling up stuff that you think supports your case when in fact the opposite is true"
Even your own stuff supports my case. Take this headline in your link @57 - "Climate change will shake the Earth."
You know, there is a difference between "will" and "might".
But if you believe it will, then that is all you understand, because it is what you believe....and scientists like Lowenstern become deniers, or soothsayers or prophets...correct?
And you remain a moron.
Lying again, Battie. Seems like you have mastered the art. Furthermore, you appear to think that predictions are useless, even when backed up by a huge volume of studies looking at the symptoms of AGW including increased atmospheric C02 concentrations and the so-called fertilization effect. As many studies have shown, none that you have read or understand, increased C02 concentrations have unpredictable effects on plant quality, based on primary and secondary metabolism. These changes have negative effects on consumers up the food chain. Extrapolate that to higher scales and they have negative effects on ecological communities and ecosystems. Moreover, the effects on plant growth are non-linear. Some plants soak up a lot of the C02 whereas others do not grow larger at all, creating competitive asymmetries. This will lead to the exclusion of the losers, further reducing biodiversity and simplifying food webs. But again, you don't have a clue about any of this, and remain stuck in your myopic little bigger is better world.
Just come out and say it: you don't think we should do a bloody thing to mitigate C02 or try to rein in climate warming until there is absolute, 100%, verifiable proof that the harm it will do to our ecological life support systems is beyond doubt and that it will threaten our future. This is the crux of your arguments through and through. Its akin to telling a population living under a dormant volcano that, when it becomes active and begins spewing ash and tephra, they should remain in their homes until volcanologists can provide absolute proof that a major eruption is imminent. No need to panic. This is exactly what local politicians told the populace of Martinique in St. Pierre in 1902 when their volcano, Mount Pelee, came to life. No need to panic! was the clarion call and the volcano became increasing active. Then suddenly, on May 18th of that year, a huge pyroclasitc flow blew out the side of the volcano and killed 22,000 inhabitants in minutes, sparing two.
Humans are doing the same to the planet, only in slow motion. Idiots like you, Betula, believe that nothing should be done until we are about to go over the precipice.
You should change your name to the procrastinator. Because that is what you and people like you are. I've seen your kinds in many places. Delay! Delay! We need more proof! All this as humans continue their one-off non-repeatable experiment on systems that we depend on entirely.
You are more than a moron. And you know what? Your scientific knowledge stinks. But then again, we all knew that. Stick to your tree shearing, because its all you are good at - allegedly.
By the way, Barkie, I am flattered that you are looking me up. When was the last time you presented a public or academic lecture?
I'll answer that. Never. No one would invite a clown like you. You are restricted to rants on blogs and up birch trees.
None of the blurb in those advertisements are contestable. Go ahead and try, Mr. legend in your own mind. The pre-determined views come from those driven by profit-maximizing agendas. The very fact that you apparently see no link between corporate lobbying, with fossil fuel companies also investing heavily in denial, and bought-and-paid for scientists for hire and politicians speaks volumes.
You just don't have a clue about any of this because your world is very small. Before you try and take me on this area I suggest you read a lot of literature and try and catch up.
Study all that again and grasp the context.
So you are still talking to yourself in the mirror, that explains why you fail to grasp the point that climate change will cause seismic events. Sit on a water bed and place a cup of water on it near by. Now get off the bed, what happens to that cup of water?
Yes Hardley, I did notice you didn't address your blatant hypocrisy...
Hardley - " Its akin to telling a population living under a dormant volcano that, when it becomes active and begins spewing ash and tephra, they should remain in their homes "
No simpleton, it's equivalent to telling them that in order to stop the volcano from blowing, they need to send money to the undeveloped nations in the name of social justice, equality and fairness..... and if they question this, the volcanic eruption is their fault.
@77 - Go back to bed Lionel, you're dreaming again.
That's rich coming from someone who has a years'-long history of not addressing the manifold pointings-out of his own errors of fact and logic.
You know, for a dork that claims to be only visit Deltoid, our resident birch bark retard makes more posts on the site than everyone else combined. He's clearly rattled and every time promises - er threatens - to leave the site, he comes back with more of his Tea Party/right wing righteous bullshit.
And he still cannot accept that his country was founded on violence and continues to perpetuate violence in order to force the rest of the world to swallow its version of free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism. And once again, he's so dumbed down by the news he watches on his TV (must be that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are his ' intellectual' heroes) that he believes that the US truly believes in democracy, freedom and human rights, and that the poor are poor because they aren't as nobel as 'Murcan's.
Debating this clown is beyond easy because he's ssooooo dumb.
I am also concerned that Barkie has an unhealthy fixation with me - seems like he spends a lot of time on the internet looking me up, copy-pasting links about me that even I never knew existed. He's an anonymous schmuck, and hides behind his bark. Not that even his real life persona is very interesting. The US is full of 'em.
Yes Hardley, again I noticed you didn't address your blatant hypocrisy...
Just more drivel from your imagination, and unfortunately for you, you still can't copy and paste from your imagination.
And they let these imbeciles run around with guns. That is the frightening bit. Not only guns but whole arsenals of weapons more powerful than the average gunny, barker should know evidently. The Wild West never went away.
If one looks at history the revolution was built on a lie, a lie as to who was the aggressor and the nature of the tax in dispute. It was the repeal of a tax that sparked trouble when the local 'mafia' had their smuggling racket spoiled.
And then they claim that the are pro-life, against abortion, not knowing the difference between an insentient group of cells (embryo) and a foetus. Never mind the children that get gunned down when someone runs amok with an Uzi.
Bernard, I never did get to thank you for helping prove how Hardely's "thinking is egregiously logically fallacious"
It's good to see we can find common ground in some things.
Thanks,
Your good friend,
Betula
Hardley - "And he still cannot accept that his country was founded on violence and continues to perpetuate violence in order to force the rest of the world to swallow its version of free market absolutism and nakedly predatory capitalism"
Lionel - "If one looks at history the revolution was built on a lie, a lie as to who was the aggressor and the nature of the tax in dispute"
But I thought the climate change debate was over?
Hardley - "I am also concerned that Barkie has an unhealthy fixation with me"
The only person that has a fixation with you is you. Here, let me show you...
"my 173 career papers and 4800 citations"
"Given my professional training"
"You cannot stand in the same building as me as a scientist in terms of knowledge and experience,"
"Scientists trained in the relevant fields – including me"
"As I said, I lecture in this area "
"He couldn’t debate me on a scientific level in fields in which I have been trained in a million years"
" I guess the fact that I am a Professor in Population Ecology who lectures at universities and conferences and who has been interviewed by the media on issues relating to global change does not factor into Betula’s empty smear."
"Betula, in case you hadn’t noticed, I work at a research institute, give many lectures at universities and attend international workshops and conferences"
" Its this area that explains why I am infinitely more qualified to comment on than you, GSW,"
"But I am busy GSW; I have science to do. Its my job"
You see Hardley, when it's NOT imagined, it can be copied and pasted....reality is so much easier. You should try it.
All of the stuff I said is true, Barkie. I bothered to send myself through university, to get a PhD in population ecology, and to work my butt off writing papers, giving lectures, supervising students and attending conferences. I have made it to the level of Professor. You, on the other hand, have done nix and think that this doesn't matter, that you can debate me on an equal intellectual footing on subjects well outside of your competence. You are seriously afflicted with Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
But I'm also not spending hours looking myself up on the internet. I really couldn't care less what you think, to be honest, because many of your comments are childishly simple, as one would expect from an untrained individual. But if the shoe fits, wear it: I wouldn't ridicule some medical procedure carried out by a trained physician, because I know he/she were trained in that endeavor and I wasn't. You, on the other hand, readily comment on areas you know nothing about and actually think you understand the complex aspects of these fields.
You don't. You are well out of your depth. And there's nothing wrong with asserting myself and my qualifications against people whose opinions are based on superficial arguments. Do I know more about plant-animal ecology than you? Yes, by miles. No controversy there.
Look! A Wild Turkey!
Here's Betula's strategy, if one can call it that:
1. Intimate that there is some way out assertion (e.g that there is a UN conspiracy to take away his wealth to help the poor or that there is no problem with increased C02 in the atmosphere as the vegetation will absorb it; alternatively, we don't know how climate change will turn out.
2. Use poor examples or half-truths to support his assertions;
3. When called on these, to backtrack and claim that he never made the assertions in the first place. Witness his linking to the Nature paper on C02 fertilization effects; he aimed that at me, for some reason, as if I had ever denied the effect. I instead have focused the discussion on qualitative changes in plants and effects up the food chain, something out tree pruner here know nothing about.
4. He then claims he never said that C02 fertilization was a good thing. That being so, why copy-paste the link in the first place then?
Essentially, Betula is a pretty simple guy who thinks he is clever. A dangerous cocktail.
Finally, I am wondering when Battie is going to bicker about the fact that the US is sending billions of taxpayer dollars to poor third world countries already - in military ordinance, bombing these people to smithereens. The US has already spent around a trillion dollars destroying Iraq and Libya and creating ISIL in the process. Funny that he doesn't complain here about that money being 'wasted'. Its his after all - the taxpayer is paying for this carnage, all at the behest of the military industrial complex. Moreover, I wonder why he hasn't griped about the billions of US taxpayers dollars spent in 2008 to bail out the corrupt banks there. He's all worried about a fraction of this being spent to create social justice in the third world but not to create social justice at home. And let's not forget the 4 trillion dollars in money that corporations in the US have not paid in taxes.
The reasons are simple: Battie is a right wing, simpleton idiot.
#66, the answer is yes and shame on you for bringing up your good brother.
Is the Liebig / Sprengle idea about
least nutrients limiting growth a reasonable one?
Im asking this in the more CO2 equals more flora context.
Bit worried about phosphate supply.
And bit worried by swarms of insects.
Thanks for any replies on this topic.
As usual, deniers can fuck off with their
non science contributions.
Just on taxes. Im mightily aggrieved that
little old me alone paid more than QANTAS a
couple financial years ago. Something is
seriously amiss with the system.
Id also like to suggest that
there may be issues with
the law of unintended consequences
and N15 distribution vis a vis
rapidly changing marine environments
combining with rapidly changing land
environments.
Now is not the time to cut research funding
in ANY of the sciences. Cept landmine development
and other crap defence science.
Mmmmmm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication
http://m.treephys.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/9/1148.full
Hardley - "I have made it to the level of Professor"
I know who you are Hardley, I have already proved it on this site. And you can't stand it.
You are an ideologue who's "thinking is egregiously logically fallacious”, you are a hypocrite, you have "spiders" in the belfry, you create nothing, you help no one, you don't solve anything and you have an overwhelming feeling of self importance guided by your imagination. You put yourself on a pedestal not realizing people can see you for the putz that you really are.
It's sad, but so easy to expose.
You have a mental block that allows your imagination to be your reality..... It's unfortunate for you that you can't copy and paste what you imagine I do, or think or even say, but I can always copy and paste you imagining it.
Look at LI D @96!
Learns a new word so believes it must be a new phenomenon.
Hysterical!
#97 is my laugh of the day :D :D
Hardley - "Look! A Wild Turkey!"
Actually a very common phrase around theses parts about 20 -25 years ago, when Wild Turkeys were a rare site. Now they are abundant.
Of course, I never stated this was a result of climate change or suggested it was witnessing climate change "first hand" as though they were spiders, however, I have to wonder how a healthy Wild Turkey population is a bad thing for the Turkeys.
#99 - Ditto.
#98 p3
By golly your mind is fried.
You state assumptions as if they
were reality.
Its dishonest to yourself more than
anything. Dickhead troll.
Kampen - "the answer is yes and shame on you for bringing up your good brother"
So you think I should be ashamed that my brother is gay?
Do I imagine a slight anti-gay bias in Kampen?
A healthy wild turkey population is not bad for the turkeys at all. Growing up in Canada I wondered what it must have been like when they were present in southern Ontario, and to see them again in 2009 when I visited there was neat. The problem is that for every success story like this there are dozens of negative ones. The plight of eastern North American songbirds in population freefall is of profound concern.
As for being a putz, that's your worthless opinion. I am actually flattered that you think so, because you are a complete idiot. If you actually praised me, I'd be seriously worried. And I worked hard to get where I am in science. You didn't - indeed, you come up with bullshit ideas and then expect us all to swallow them whole here. You are a know-nothing whoe comments on areas miles beyond your competence, like a car without brakes.
Next time you or someone close to you is ill, I'll also expect you to seek a witch doctor for advice or better still, a home remedy. You clearly think that studying medicine as well is pointless, since you can read a book or two and know more than the doctor working in the field.
As for putting myself on a pedestal, that's a real hoot. Like other scientists, I am very self critical when it comes to my own work. But when I see nobodies coming onto blogs claiming to know more about science and climate change than the people doing the actual research, then I call them on it. Idiots like Watts, Morano, Mountford, Monckton, and many other bloggers who have never been near a science lecture in their miserable lives. These people routinely smear scientists, or else cherry pick like you and your twin (GSW) do.
Battie, you're a schmuck. Accept it and move on. Leave us in peace.
So Li D, did your eutrophication links actually have a purpose in mind?
#3, known as the zombie.
Hardley - "Next time you or someone close to you is ill, I’ll also expect you to seek a witch doctor for advice or better still, a home remedy"
The next time a doctor tells me he predicts my illness may lead to catastrophic consequences unless I send money to solve social justice, equality and fairness in the world, I will probably question how that will cure his predicted outcome...
If he then says that my question is actually causing his prediction to be reality, so I need to send the money immediately, I would question that as well.
I would also call him a quack....which is what I am calling you.
Kampen - "#3, known as the zombie"
A gay zombie movie, I don't think that has been made yet.....interesting.
"I would also call him a quack….which is what I am calling you"
Again, thanks for the compliment. Coming from a right wing self-righteous blowhard, indeed it is. Again, to other readers, note how bark-brain keeps banging on about social justice as if the US has been some magnanimous nation spreading peace and justice around the world, and not a violent, rogue state spending billions killing people. Imagine what just a fraction of the budget spent blowing Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya top pieces (while creating ISIL) would have done helping the poor in the south. This is not to mention the estimate trillions of dollars US corporations have stashed away in tax havens. To our residenet Tea Party quack, this money doesn't exist. Instead, he spends an unhealthy amount of time attacking those who wish to see mkore equity in the world and less out-and-out plunder.
You see Betula, you clot, you are sending monies to the bankers, militarists, and corporate cronies in big bundles. Yet you give these crooks a free pass and instead save your wrath for those who would prefer it was used to help the poor, and to create social justice and equity in the world.
You really are a clown. So utterly stupid, you would be funny if you weren't real. You have been dumbed down to the core.
Except that you're utterly wrong about this too.
My point was that Robert Scribbler sourced multiple scientific data agancies and reports. I made no comment about your grievance with Jeff and any alleged reference to the National Post.
As is consistently your wont you are engaging yet again in your signature egregious logical fallacy, and that you do so knowing full-well what I meant indicates that you're a mendacious schmuck lower on the evolutionary tree than biofilm in a cesspit. Either that, or you are incapacitated with an intelligence less than that of said biofilm.
Distinctly there. Really, Battie, shame on you.
And they answer to the name of Betula.
BTW they have a habit of running around headless talking out of their @r$£.
You do indeed imagine that, but then imagining things is your forte.
Bernarf - Read #22 page 3.
And thanks again.
Those who have been studying the aspect of climate change mitigation have lost a leader.
I have just discovered that David J C MacKay has passed away after a short illness and before expected.
He will be missed.
@ 9 and !0..
I see you are keeping the unbiased climate debate alive.. eh Hardley?
From Mark Lynas WRT David J C MacKay's passing.
Ah, I see your problem Betula - you are anachonically reinterpretting my comments.
You see,at #20 on p3 I was responding to your comment at #16 p3 that cRR Kampen at #13 p3
was, in your words, "...pulling out the “peer reviewed”
Robertscribbler blog". He was, and my subsequent comments was to confirm that he did cite peer-reviewed sources.
I told you that I wasn't referring to your conversation with Jeff, but you seem to want to confabulate two different threads in order to make your fallacious points and avoid the simple fact that I was originally making, which was that cRR's link to Robert Scribbler contained peer reviewed material.
You're such a pillock.
False equivalence.
Better to say in your doctor analogy that your bad diet will lead to catastrophic consequences for your liver, gall bladder, vascular system, and other tissues and organs, and that you should cease the behaviour that leads to it, including the purchase of healthy food instead of $2 burgers from your local road stop.
It's revealing though that you don't have a social conscience. I bet you love law and order that keeps other people from infringing on your own freedoms, but you don't want to partake in the moral quid pro quo...
Really? Can you illustrate with data this particularly long bow that you draw?
You can call your doctor a quack too, if you disagree with his advice to stop eating burgers and doughnuts, but calling him that doesn't make it so.
For your information Jeff's h-index is 41, which is interstellar for an ecologist, and to date he has 5040 citations listed by Scopus. SciVal shows that his field-weighted citation impact is 1.51, which means that his citation count is 51% over the world average for the field codes in which he publishes. By comparison Edward O. Wilson, one of the most famous ecologists around, has an h-index of 42, with 7092 citations, but then according to Scopus EO Wilson has been publishing since 1953 whilst Jeff’s been at it only since 1993. EO Wilson’s current FWCI is 2.06, which is huge, but again he has 40 years on Jeff with which to establish his ability to be cited over recent years.
The bottom line is that you might call Jeff a quack, but your opinion is about as relevant as it would be if you called Einstein a quack, or Francis Crick, or Newton, or Galton.
And you? All you do is deny the best science from the most scrutinised discipline in the world, simply because it’s telling you something that you desperately don’t want to hear.
We all know who the real quack is on this blog. I’ll give you a clue – it’s you.
"Better to say in your doctor analogy that your bad diet will lead to catastrophic consequences for your liver, gall bladder, vascular system, and other tissues and organs, and that you should cease the behaviour that leads to it, including the purchase of healthy food instead of $2 burgers from your local road stop."
I see - so this supposed catastrophic illness you say he has is in fact a UN-sponsored scheme to redistribute money away from MuckDonalds and towards marxist healthfood shops planning a new world order of trans-fat-free nutrition?
You guys are sooo transparent. Greasy burgers are here to stay!
(Did you know Tim Flannery lives within 1km of 2 McDonalds, a KFC, a Wendy's & a PizzaHut? What a hypocrite!)
Craig, you caught me.
Yes, dietary medicine is all a Marxist conspiracy.
All science is, truth be told. You should hear what we discuss behind closed doors...
Bernard, so when Hardley attacks the source of GSW's article without noting that it "contained peer reviewed material".....his thinking is not "egregiously fallacious", because at the Deltoid asylum it is a one way street...correct?
Hypocrite.
Bernard - "Better to say in your doctor analogy that your bad diet will lead to catastrophic consequences for your liver, gall bladder, vascular system, and other tissues and organs, and that you should cease the behaviour that leads to it, including the purchase of healthy food instead of $2 burgers from your local road stop"
No, that doesn't work. I would still ask the doctor how is this going to bring social justice, equality and fairness to the undeveloped nations paid for by the evil that made the burgers...
Bernard - "but your opinion is about as relevant as it would be if you called Einstein a quack, or Francis Crick, or Newton, or Galton'"
That has to be the greatest line from a Deltoid patient I have ever seen.
I can see it now, Jeff Einstein...witnessing climate change "first hand" while observing a spider and subsequently getting frostbite in the process.
Jeff Einstein's Theory of Insanity
Bernard - "All you do is deny the best science from the most scrutinised discipline in the world, simply because it’s telling you something that you desperately don’t want to hear"
What part about the rich developed nations developing the poor undeveloped nations is denial?
And how is this going to reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run? By how much and when?
And how will this prevent the catastrophic predictions...when and where?
And how much will it cost and who will pay?
Please, in detail.....I do "want to hear".
I told you Betula I'm not talking about your conversation with Jeff. I was correcting your misrepresentation of my original post, and you keep trying to point at squirrels.
You're not fooling anyone but yourself.
Again, you're misrepresenting the argument.
The aim of ceasing carbon emissions is to retain the health of the planet, just as the aim of changing your diet is to save your life.
Improving social circumstances as a result of such changes, whether planetary or with respect to one's family, is a consequence of the primary need to avoid biospheric/body catastrophe. Whatever the consequences, they do not alter the need for the change of bad habits if one wants to have a future.
You really can't help sliding to radical libertarian ideology, can you?
Typical: you focus on twisting an analogy, rather than acknowledging that Jeff has standing as a scientist in the top 10% - and probably in the top few percent - of his discipline. You can't acknowledge that Jeff is an expert, not the "quack" that you make him out to be, and that your insults to him in this regard are simply sour grapes on your part rather than anything to do with reality.
But prove me wrong. Go into any of Jeff's 160+ publications and show where his quackery is. I dare you, and I will guarantee that there's nothing in Jeff's work that supports your claims of quackery.
That's the selfish bottom line for you, isn't it?
The simple answer is us, because we're the beneficiaries of a once-in-a-planetary-lifetime squandering of an energy-dense, non-renewable resource, a Mr Creosote-like gorging pollution party that has consequently led to us pushing the biosphere to a tipping point where our decendants' futures, our species' future, and much of our biodiversity's future is seriously threated within the coming centuries.
So suck it up you big, petulant, selfish baby. We shit all over the planet, so it's our responsibility to fix it.
'And how much will it cost and who will pay?'
You will.
Probably already started paying, too.
How much will it cost? A mere habitable planet.
Yes Bernard, I did notice you didn't answer my questions:
What part about the rich developed nations developing the poor undeveloped nations is denial?
And how is this going to reduce overall CO2 emissions in the short and long run? By how much and when?
And how will this prevent the catastrophic predictions…when and where?
And how much will it cost?
And I will add - Who will oversee the collection, prioritization, distribution and monitoring of the money and it's results?
Of course I realize that on Deltoid, the mere act of asking these questions translates to being the primary cause of the predicted future catastrophic scenarios in the first place.
Perhaps if you pretend I didn't ask them, the predictions would be fixed and Utopia will be found...
#28 - nihilism. The end result of the Ideology of Plunder.
#29 - from asomeone who hopes for the annihilation of Cairns.
Genius.
#30 - I told you before, I didn't say that. You did.
#31 - Your imagination told you I did, otherwise, you would copy and paste where I said it...
Unfortunately for you, you can't copy and paste your imagination, but I can copy and paste your words:
"I hope against knowledge of her expected track that Cyclone Ita will wipe Cairns off the map"
Welcome to the Deltoid Asylum, In this episode (#32), a visit from reality confronts a patients imagination....
Speaking as somebody who was in Cairns when ITA was coming, I'm curious who it is who wanted it wiped out around me.
Did CRR Kampen actually say this, or was this some kind of weird Brad Keyes/Delingpole shenanigans?
Betula, I'm not answering your questions because you're not answering my earlier points. You don't get to change the subject just because I point out to you your logical fallacies - such behaviour is itself a logical fallacy.
To summarise...
1) cRR's link to Robert Scribbler's post contains peer reviewed science. Your thimble-rigging to a conversation with Jeff does not change this.
2) Jeff Harvey has a highly-credible standing and a substantial output in his discipline of research. He is not a "quack". He is smarter than you. You have offered no evidence to challenge his professional credibility, the quality and quantitiy of his professional output, that he is a "quack", or that he is not smarter than you. Your questions about who pays for mitigating climate change does not change any of the preceding.
And you didn't seem to notice that I did answer the bottom line of your questions. We need to pay to mitigate climate change damage. Us. The rich people in the First World, who have benefited for a century and a half and who have pushed the planet to breaking point. We have to pay, before the rest of the planet and its biodiversity and future generations end up paying forever after for our generations' flagrant selfishness and indolent refusal to tighten our own belts. We have to pay, and we have to pay until we bleed if that's what it takes, because we're the cause of a slow motion, implaccable assault to civilisation and to life on Earth that will dwarf anything that either have witnessed before, save for larger asteroids and supervulcanism.
My grandparents lived through the tribulations of Nazi occupation in the Netherlands in WWII. They were horrified decades ago that Australian, British and US governments and populations couldn't gather the wherewithal to engage the resources to deal with what was the much more managable issue of climate change back then: if they were alive today they'd be scaldingly scathing of the self-indulgent torpidity of rich folk such as you who petulantly mewl and bleat about having to lift a finger to help anyone other than themselves.
If you want answers to your questions read for starters AR5. Look to the forward-thinking actions of the Germans, and the Scandinavians, and see that wealthy nations can move toward mitigation without donning hair shirts - it just takes a social conscience, intelligence and a preparedness to cut some personal fat.
If your sociopthatic self-centredness does not allow you to contemplate acting beyond your own benefit, don't worry. If you're under about 45 and live out the term of your natural life you'll get to see how profoundly damaging has been the result of your unpreparedness, and the unpreparedness of your denialist mates, to participate in the mitigation of human-caused global warming. You're either a part of the solution or a part of the problem, and you irrevocably own your proportional share of the damage that will be visited on the planet in the coming decades.
Rhetorical distraction and logical fallacy will not change that.
Betula, I attacked and criticized GSWs source article because it is an outlier. Its one study that stands apart in terms of its conclusions from over 100 others. That's called cherry picking in normal parlance. In science its considered dishonest to cherry pick, even amongst experts in the field. Since when are GSW and you experts? In your wet dreams perhaps.
The very fact that you clowns cite single studies and ignore hundreds of others with opposite conclusions generally published in much more rigid journals is proof, if any were ever needed, that you are biased and that your views on AGW are pre-determined. You scour the internet for a few studies downplaying the effects of AGW, and when you find one or two, they are copy-pasted up here as if they represent the bottom line. When I and others point that out, the smears come thick and fast, an art you are trying to master.
And once again, in terms of training and expertise, I shit all over you and GSW. The truth may indeed hurt, but there it is.
#33 - climate revisionists said that, I just verbalized it for them.
It was a trap. Into which the bradthing dropped with quite a thud. He spread it around. Funniest thing is climate revisionists began to defend me...
#32, that's what you said, yes.
If Cairns were wiped off the map, AUS would have left coal and save 100M or so.
Sorry cRR but where did that take place?
I was busy whacking moles elsewhere on DesMog but they have gone and deleted the whole comments thread (Marc Morano's Climate Hustle Movie "Amateurish" and "Not Very Watchable" Says Filmmaker), although they could be just weeding and will put back the useful posts, maybe.
I ask Bernard pertinent questions about the predicted solution to the predicted future catastrophic scenarios and he answers with Nazis...
Another Deltoid moment to remember.
1.Bernard - "cRR’s link to Robert Scribbler’s post contains peer reviewed science.".....and so Bernard, you believe my thinking is "egregiously fallacious"
2. GSW's link, the source which Hardley attacked, contains peer reviewed science.....and thanks to you Bernard, I now see his thinking is "egregiously fallacious"
Please be gracious and accept my sincere gratitude for opening my eyes to the ways of Hardley.
Betula
Bernard - "self-indulgent torpidity of rich folk such as you who"
And thank you for believing I'm wealthy.
What was it that convinced you, your belief that I'm stupid or your belief that I lack an education?
Please, put your logic on paper for all to share.
Thanks.
#39
Having outed one 'Darrel Harb' as the bradthing first, I hid the trap in #85 below http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=104&&n=219 .
This went here: https://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/11/communication-dilemmas-1-wishin…
And then a teeny weeny bit viral, e.g.: http://www.examiner.com/article/global-warmist-wants-white-people-kille… .
While that went around, the bradthing contacted me personally and we had some considerable emailexchanges about anything but what could give him any grip over me.
And my FB account got hacked.
By googling 'cRR Kampen Ita' (or '... Cairns') you can reconstruct some trail. Including places where climate revisionists began defending me, because they simply could not believe I was that cynical (only partly correctly so).
I telling Battie etc that they said they wanted Cairns off the map, not I. It is the climate revisionists' wish, not mine. I just stood in as a sock puppet for them, I voiced what they want.
This is why I want a Sandy 2.0 at 860 hPa and why I want all the coral dead inside 48 hours.
Not all mentions of Nazis are Godwins, Betula, as you seem to be implying. You see, to invoke a Godwin point one needs to make a comparison with Nazis or Hilter, which I most emphatically did not do.
Of course, your response is likely to be that you weren't referring to Godwin's Law, but in that case your precious moment is really nothing more than a non sequitur.
And in your signature fashion you've avoided the substantive point of my comment.
Yes.
You've demonstrated it time and time again.
You are wealthy.
The very fact that you're typing on a computer to post on this blog is all the proof that is needed.
1) Your long-demonstrated resistance to fact and logic, and your ongoing cleaving to ideology, show stupidity of at least a certain sort. All the worse for apparently being wifful in its nature. To the extent that wilful stupidity on an ongoing basis would likely be rapidly selected against in a less-than-wealthy context, it only serves to support the original notion of your wealth as demonstrated by your access to technology.
2) As it happens, yes, by world standards and across the centuries, having an education is a highly reliable proxy for your wealth. Nota bene: there is a difference between having received an education and being educated - I'm only accusing you of the former, and not the latter.
I do, all the time. The trouble is that you always slip away from it like a greased pig.
cRR #43
Ah yes thanks.I remember that now.
Somebody else recognised the brad thing in Darrell Harb clothing.
Perhaps the sock should be returned to Lucius Malfoy Brad's alter ego (but with Lucius having a rather smaller ego).
Those were some crazy days, Lionel.
By the way, the missile is the last paragraph in #72 there. I guess the author of #78, one 'Ed Hancock', found out independently.
Bernard - "You are wealthy. The very fact that you’re typing on a computer to post on this blog is all the proof that is needed"
I would say your thinking is egregiously fallacious....
http://news.microsoft.com/features/empowering-kenya-and-the-world-with-…
"GSW’s link, the source which Hardley attacked, contains peer reviewed science"
So what? So do 150 other papers with very different conclusions. Why doesn't GSW link to them? His one paper isn't necessarily correct. Moreover, one of the authors is linked closely with the Heartland Institute. Not good news if he wants to come across as being seen as independent.
You just don't know how science works, do you Barkie. I have 176 peer-reviewed papers. I am sure you would hate all of them, that is if you could understand them.
What people like you and GSW do is try and muddy the waters by suggesting that the field of AGW and its effects on nature are inconclusive. If one or two studies shed doubt, then to biased interlopers like you, they are important. And then we should do nothing to deal with AGW because the science isn't settled.
This has long been the strategy of deniers. Not to win a scientific victory which they will never get. The goal is to create doubt so that nothing gets done to deal with the problem. You are such a simple bunch.
Hardley - "So what?"
So, using Bernard's logic, your thinking is egregiously fallacious. It's all right there in the comments.
If you have an issue with your thinking problem, you should think about taking it up with Bernard.
Just a thought.
cRR, just been reviewing what an @r$£ the Brad Bird is. I have just finished with a nuclear grade decontamination exercise here, and I know what I am on about there, been there and done it. Gets hot in those NBCD suits, which are now probably known as Hazmat. Psychologists must have had a field day reading through BradBilge (aka Harbicide).
Kampen's imagination appears to be his best defense.
Then again, it's all he has.
Actually Betula, you right wing loon, I have an issue with your thinking problem. You comment on peer-review - without really understanding what it entails - and then you feebly try to use it to defend GSWs blatant cherry picking.
When was the last time you peer-reviewed a scientific paper Battie? I think we all know the answer to that one. Unless it was on methods for pruning new shoots of deciduous trees, published in Birch Bark Weekly (impact factor - 0.257), then the answer is never.
With respect to that crappy Polar Bear paper, I assume you are talking about the one in an open access journal. I reviewed a paper for the same journal last year, and both I and the other reviewer were very critical of the paper and it was accepted anyway with 'major revisions'. The data IMO were leftovers from a PhD, scraped together to make a story. The other reviewer was actually way more critical than me, and we both recommended 'reject', but it was published anyway. So much for peer-review.
But is says something about the open access process and that's en entirely different kettle of fish.
Hardley -"and then you feebly try to use it to defend GSWs blatant cherry picking"
When will you begin to realize you are seeing things that aren't there?
Only when you go back and try to copy and paste something that doesn't exist....
You're delusional.
Said the Mad Hatter to the mirror.
#51, ah, field days!
#52, defense, for slash against what, Betula?
On a side note, I have been acquainted with those NBCD suits, back in the totally forgotten Cold War. They would indeed be comfortable at -35° C and fifty knots.
#57 - If you have to ask, I can't help you.
The Daily Caller are reporting on a new PNAS paper here,
"Study: Turns Out Global Warming Won’t Devastate The Ocean"
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/study-turns-out-global-warming-wont-d…
"Global warming won’t harm plankton, which most ocean life depends on for food, according to a new study published online Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
"The new study is the latest to show that nature is considerably more resilient to global warming than scientists suspected. Global warming has even had positive environmental impacts like helping Canadian trees recover from a devastating insect infestation, literally causing deserts to bloom with foliage and helping the Alaskan Moose."
There's something very "unalarming" about it all.
:)
#60 - Get ready for it. Here comes the "egregiously fallacious" thinking...in 3, 2, 1
It was trying to service and work aircraft on an aircraft carrier in NBCD suits that was a real test of endurance and patience, even worse than working in respirators (gas masks) and anti-flash gear.
Trust the Daily Caller to oversimplify and turn the facts on their head and GSW to fall for it.
Just think about those currents GSW - what does it mean?
Getting your science from The Daily Caller is as useful as getting news from The Beano or The Dandy. Desperate Dan out farts Rush Limbaugh.
There it is at #63 Bernard, just as predicted in #61.
How do I know these things?
Though I will admit, my money was on Hardley.
"By googling ‘cRR Kampen Ita’ (or ‘… Cairns’) you can reconstruct some trail. Including places where climate revisionists began defending me, because they simply could not believe I was that cynical (only partly correctly so)."
I tried that.
I'm usually up for this kind of research and reconstruction but I have to confess I got completely lost on this one.
Thanks for the additional links (above), I will try again today, to see what was going on...
Not that tough Craig -
https://climatenuremberg.com/2014/04/11/communication-dilemmas-1-wishin…
And you may want to note, there doesn't appear to be a statement from anyone who goes by the name Betula in that link...
Of course you would. And you'd be wrong. Again.
And logically fallacious yourself, again.
You speak English when you use your computer. You speak it using at least the level of a person who has completed secondary education in English. You post in a time zone that indicates a First World country. You prune trees, and style yourself after the birch, two factoids that reinforce your First World origin. Your concerns are for First World economies, and are of a right-wing libertarian bent - again, the luxury (and perceived entitlement) of a First World citizen.
You're wealthy in global and historical terms Betula. If you believe otherwise please explain in detail why you are so convinced.
And for your information I count myself wealthy, even though my salary is now only just above the Australian mean, after having been below it for most of my life as I have worked in poor-paying science jobs, have studied part-time for many years and simultaneously worked part-time, and have taken three years off full-time work to be a primary care-giver. I'm way behind the 8-ball as far as even the average Australian is concerned. But I am wealthy by any civilisational context, and you're a self-indulgent schmuck for resisting accepting that you too are wealthy.
The denier hack who writes the Daily Caller article, Andrew Follett, titles his puff piece "Turns out Global Warming Won't Devastate the Ocean". This based on a single study which examines polar plankton and their response to warming based on phenotypic plasticity and genetic variation. You have to wonder how GSW finds this crap but my guess is that, like Betula, he's a sad, lonely insecure fellow who sits at his computer all day searching under every slimy rock he can to find articles to copy-paste on blogs downplaying the clearly negative effects or rapid AGW. He must come across thousands with very different conclusions in his quest, but these are ignored and he moves on, until presto! The Hollett bilge. The its quickly put up here (and I assume elsewhere in his echo chamber) along with the usual abuse of facts, data and the conclusions which are always taken way, way out of context. This is par for the course for AGW deniers. I've been following this veritable pile of excrement for the past 20 years now and their tactics never change.
As Lionel says, its mazing how anti-environmental deniers twist, distort and conflate the findings of single studies examining a very small subset of organisms is a very small subset of a specific ecosystem then turn the study to argue that it covers everything and that there are thus no consequences to warming across the biosphere. GSW wades in with his grade 5 level comments, as expected, totally ignoring as I have pointed out (1) hundreds of times more studies across many different ecosystems and levels of organization results showing highly deleterious effects of warming on individuals, species, communities and ecosystems; (2) that the authors of the studies he posts up here would be seriously annoyed that right wing blogs and the corporate media are abusing their results to downplay the very real threat posed to natural systems by AGW; and (3) that more biomass does not in any way translate into higher plant fitness or that of consumers associated with them.
Note also how Betula, an ex-marine or whatever, says nix about his tax dollars going to support the almost trillion dollar annual military budget in the US, a budget that is being used to kill industrial numbers of people abroad and also to promote the interests of US corporations, or else that his tax dollars were used to bail out the banks and other corporations involved in subterfuge. He's angry that anyone would want social justice and equity in a world characterized by violence and plunder, but when the rich manipulate governments to make themselves richer thats OK with him. The 1.4 trillion dollars in unpaid taxes by US corporations through havens is also fine by him.
Again, he's a complete hypocrite. GSW is just stupid. Too stupid to even attain hypocrisy. Also thinks he can debate me on ecological studies. How dumb can he get?
John Birch: "When will you begin to realize you are seeing things that aren’t there?"
EarlierJohn Birch: "GSW’s link, the source which Hardley attacked, contains peer reviewed science"
I rest my case. Guilty of profound hypocrisy and ignorance.
Of course there is - because it's rubbish reporting.
There's so much wrong that I'm not even going to try to go into it in any depth, but I'll give you a precis.
First, the PNAS paper is about what is essentially the most mobile taxon of organisms, so the issue of local temperature changes is of course going to impact them the least. That said, if you read the discussion you'll see the authors aren't quite as sanguine about the robustness of phytoplankton as you might imagine.
If you consider just the next trophic level up in the ocean, the corals, you find that the warming that we've already instigated pretty much spells death to our planet's reefs. Read this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855618/
and this:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/full/nclimate1674.html
and this:
http://horizon.ucsd.edu/miller/download/Coral_Climate_Change/Coral_Clim…
It's not just corals that are affected, but I'll leave it to you to do the literature reviewing that shows how widespread is impact of temperature increase.
Further, the Doblin and Sebille consider only one parameter, temperature. Just yesterday, at the 4th International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World, Alistair Hobday noted that the ocean acidification itself, concomitant with global warming, is such that even if emissions are restricted to such that warming plateaus at ~1.5°C, the resultant acidification will be such that reef loss will eventually occur. The RCP6.0 would see the majority of reefs killed by 2100, and almost complete destruction of reefs by 2300.
It was interesting talking with the best of the world's marine chemists and ecologists in this context. I didn't meet a single person who thought didn't accept that ocean acidification is a profoundly damaging phenomenon: they all see it in the work that they do, and they know what's coming. Even without any warming at all, we should be ceasing emissions on the basis of saving the ocean ecosystem alone.
The only dissenter I heard all day was a white-haired geologist in the audience of a public seminar, who stated that he understood deep time as it was his tool in trade (and thereby implying that the scientists at this symposium did not...) and that there is no correlation in the fossil record between coral species diversity and atmospheric CO₂ concentration. Sadly for him, he was totally pwned by Bärbel Hönisch, who showed that there was in fact a stark relationship between CO₂ pulses and a decrease in coral biodiversity through the geological record. The geologist them tried to press his point that it wasn't CO₂ by suggesting that it was a result of changes in dissolved trace elements, but again he was completely pwned by Bärbel and others on the panel and in the audience. What was fascinating was to watch him completely ignore the evidence, and to clutch to his heart his conviction that CO₂ does not harm coral...
So your tabloid hack from the Daily Caller (gag) was completely misrepresenting the gravity of warming, and completely missing the fact that its effect is compounded by the other impact of carbon emissions, ocean acidifcation. It's not surprising that your confirmation bias swallowed it hook, line and sinker, but burying your head in the sand is no refuge from the truth - which is that we're riding our planetary ecosystem to hell in a handbasket.
Interestingly, and as an aside, Doblin and Sebille used modelling to conduct their work - why is it that you accept this modelling and not the modelling of tens of thousands of other scientists?
Heh, I see Jeff beat me to it...
Bernard - "and you’re a self-indulgent schmuck for resisting accepting that you too are wealthy"
And you're a delusional putz for imagining I've expressed any acceptance or denial of my wealth (or lack of) with you or any of the other patients at the Deltoid Asylum.
More on the "Study: Turns Out Global Warming Won’t Devastate The Ocean" story from phys.org here,
"Well-travelled plankton could ride out global warming"
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-well-travelled-plankton-global.html
"Plankton have evolved to survive a wide range of conditions, thanks to their unexpectedly vast ocean travels, a new study suggests.
These microscopic organisms support the marine food web, providing food for whales, fish and crustaceans. Scientists from UTS and Imperial College London in the UK have been modelling how plankton drift with ocean currents to understand whether they are threatened by ocean warming.
The results of the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), show for the first time the range of temperatures that plankton travel through. In most locations, they endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming."
Also, lead author looks perfectly respectable(?),
http://www.uts.edu.au/staff/martina.doblin
Scientific Enquiry 1, Alarmism 0
:)
So what's your disability GSW? Fœtal alcohol syndrome? Blunt force trauma to the pre-frontal cortex? Pithed by a high school teacher who mistook you for a toad*?
You appear to have missed my earlier post. Plankton aren't the only taxon in the oceans - do you understand how temperature increase affects the rest of the millions of species that live in the marine ecosystems of the world? Do you understand how ocean acidification affects sea life? Do you understand how these two consequences of carbon dixide emissions interact to further impact on sea life, and how marine pollution, over-harvesting, and coastal development further exacerbate the problems?
Do you GSW? Do you?
Here's a challenge for you. Email Martina, and ask her if her study indicates that the oceans are not seriously threatened by global warming and ocean acidification. Post her response here.
Before one of us does it for you.
[*Apologies to actual toads.]
For some reason Bernard doesn't want to talk about the subject of the paper...plankton.
It's as if Bernard were upset that plankton, which "are responsible for half the Earth's oxygen and for global fisheries yields", appears to "endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming."
Apparently this good news is bad news because it doesn't help push the catastrophic-only message needed to achieve the goal.
Only the patients at the Deltoid Asylum would view the posting of such an article to be indicative of a "disability".
GSW, all you did was post it..... can you imagine what the Deltoid patients must think of the lead author, Associate Professor Martina Doblin?
Here we go again with GSW, Betula and their domino strategy.
Here's how it works. Its quite simple really. What you do is search for single studies that support a pre-determined view of any field. In the case of GSW, its ecology in relation to global change, a field he's never studied and barely understands. Their pre-determined view is based on downplaying (or even arguing that there are benefits) of AGW on biodiversity and ultimately on ecosystem functioning.
There are literally thousands of studies, many of them chronicled in meta-analyses by excellent scientists like Camille Parmesan and Eric Post, which are important in that elucidate trends from the empirical data. And what these analyses unambiguously show is that warming is having net negative effects on biodiversity at all levels or organization. This is once again based on collating the results of literally thousands of studies. There are outliers of course; the odd study showing that systems are adapting to warming, or net positive species responses But the overall trends are clearly negative and indeed this is viewed among biologists and the scientific community in general with deep concern. (GSW and Betula don't qualify as scientists, so they are left to their own inherent biases).
Anyway, here's what GSW and other deniers like Hollett and Crockford et al do. They take the odd study with conflicting conclusions in one little narrow area and then blow the conclusions of them out of all proportion, as if these results negate the conclusions of thousands of other studies with very different conclusions. I'd cite piles of these studies here, along with meta-analyses, but I don't because to be honest I am a busy, qualified, well-published and well cited scientist who knows that the views of GSW, Betula and their ilk fall well outside of the mainstream. The strategy is simple and is based on a kind of domino theory. That is, they and clots like Hollett and other shills are trying to convince people that one or two studies negate an entire field of research. In other words, the results of these studies eliminate the conclusions of many hundreds or thousands of times more studies on the ecological effects of AGW that paint a very different picture. Each of these studies is like a domino piece, with the one or two outliers being the dominoes that are strategically placed at the front of the queue. Knock these over and bingo! In the minds of the deniers, the rest fall along with them. This is what deniers are doing. GSW does it all the time. He's useless at it, but that's what he does. I recall saying once that we should not only focus our discussion of AGW effects on Polar bears, which are clearly under threat, but to other species, communities and ecosystems. Like a scared rat, GSW responded , "Of course you do!" to me, as if somehow he had me pinned on Polar Bears. Not in a million years. It was the fear that once the discussion goes to the effects of AGW on all forms of terrestrial and marine biodiversity, he's seriously up shit creek without a paddle. And he knows it too.
The only - yes ONLY - reason I write in here is to ensure that the kindergarten level views of GSW and Betula et al. are continually debunked and effectively crushed, because there may be some people reading this who don't contribute but who might actually believe their lies and misinformation. I emphasize the fact that they are both unqualified liars, and that neither is remotely interested in the truth. Their debating 'strategy', if one can call it that, is so basal as to be laughable. But its all they have. They have already lost the scientific debate big time, so instead they have to focus on the odd study that they like and then to scream the results from the mountaintops as if the results of these odd studies are not the exception but the rule. They are so predictable.
The problem is not among scientists, who routinely annihilate these cretins (witness me here on Deltoid against them. It's no contest). Its amongst the general public where the real war of disinformation is taking place and where scientists must get more involved. The internet has become the new tool for waging this war for hearts and minds. My colleagues and many of those I know around the world wonder why I engage with neophytes like GSW and Betula. I do it for the reasons I stipulated above.
As an addendum, expect (1) Betula to come back with some smear about me, spiders and Algonquin Park and (2) GSW to avoid the discussion altogether and to stick with his single domino.
Its no fun realizing how stupid some people are, and yet how they believe they actually know something about fields they have never remotely studied. When I was an editor at Nature I oversaw a paper by Huisman et al. on the paradox of the plankton. I am doing similar research now on this paradox with geline wasps in terrestrial ecosystems. I wonder what both of our armchair experts think about niche theory as it relates to this paradox and how it is resolved? I look forward to their deep discussions about neutral models and spatial and structural heterogeneity.
@bernard
Re your "Plankton aren’t the only taxon in the oceans"
Betula does make a good point,
"For some reason bernard doesn’t want to talk about the subject of the paper…plankton."
Having established that plankton are likely "Good" as far as "Global Warming" goes, in a paper from a highly respected academic, in respected journal [you got an Impact Factor for this jeff?] - you [bern] panic and scurry off looking for some last vestages of potential "Doom".
The rest of us have moved on bern, the shrill voices of "Alarmism" have had their day thankfully.
;)
All should note that Hardley failed to address the fact that his peers reviewed the paper.
Interesting....and perhaps telling.
Hardley - "to be honest I am a busy, qualified, well-published and well cited scientist"
I didn't see that coming.
"Having established that plankton are likely “Good” as far as “Global Warming” goes
Ha! Ha! Ha! Likely good? Mr semi-literate moron? How have we established that? On the basis of a single paper? One? Uno? That examines on polar plankton and makes no general conclusions? What about increased ocean acidity? Plenty of studies are showing these harm plankton, and other studies for instance in the Mediterranean are showing that marine biota are not doing well in warming waters (they are shallower and warming more rapidly but the prognosis is very poor). I won't even go into range shifts of marine biota and invasions as a response to warming. There are dozens of studies reporting that with negative consequences for native biota.
But again, GSW, you are so utterly stupid because you take your one little white domino and try to use it o knock down veritable bushels of black dominoes. Its called 'cherry picking', and I described in detail in my last post. Of course marine biologists are not suddenly going to break out in huge smiles convinced that on the basis of one study on one organism in one small part of the biosphere all is well in marine ecosystems with respect to AGW. Only idiots like you and Batty do that. Its your modus operandi. Marine systems, particularly coastal ecosystems, are in deep, deep trouble for a number of reasons, of which AGW is one. I could go into that but it will be over the pin-sized heads of our illustrious two here.
"Hardley – “to be honest I am a busy, qualified, well-published and well cited scientist”"
I like rubbing this in your faces. Its fun! And it is proof, if ever any were needed, that my comments on AGW and ecology carry about a million times more weight than yours. My last comment yesterday exposed and demolished pretty well everything you and GSW said, and when I opened the Deltoid blog this morning I knew I'd see crumbs in there from you two schmucks. You can't answer it. So out come a desperate plea (from GSW) and a smear (from you).
Care to discuss neutral models in niche theory, k-factor analysis or Nicholson-Bailey models Betula? You're such a brilliant guy and I am sure we could have a really deep conversation on these ecological models and theories.
Look! A White-Tailed Deer! Eastern North American ecosystems are really healthy!
#59 - so forever hold your peace. As you say, I did nothing I've to defend myself for. YOU DID.
And you have no defense.
@jeff
"“Having established that plankton are likely “Good” as far as “Global Warming” goes"
Like it or not jeff, those were the conclusions of the paper. See #73,
"The results of the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), show for the first time the range of temperatures that plankton travel through. In most locations, they endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming.”
And the paper is from a highly respected academic to boot.
Two idiots say:
except that I did talk about the subject of the paper.
which goes to show that these people do not comprehend, and/or simply do not follow up on the directions in which they're pointed.
Betula and GSW, I have <already indicated to you that the authors of that paper, Doblin and Sebille, consider only one parameter - temperature. I have also <already indicated to you that ocean acidification will seriously affect the oceans' calcifiers, which include a broad suite of plankton. Further, I have indicated to you that warming and acidification will synergise with each other and with other human impacts on the planet to make the end result much worse.
Want to know what happens when the planet is subjected to a significant pulse of CO₂? Check out Bärbel Hönisch's previously mentioned work:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1058
Many planktonic taxa in her study were negatively impacted by one or more global CO₂ pulses, as were corals. Those that weren't were generally non-calcifiers, and in cases where calcifiers were not apparently affected there were, as one scientist at the symposium took care to note, anomalous marine carbonate chemistry conditions in evidence that explain why the prevailing acidification had a reduced effect.
It's trivially obvious that some taxa will not be negatively impacted by the contemporary warming event created by humans. This too has been noted many times here and elsewhere, by myself and by others. Pioneer/weed species have been discussed, and sea jellies particularly have been talked about in the context of warming, acidifcation, and stratification of the oceans.
Which leads me to my next point, which is to yet again make the observation of your persistence with the employment of logical fallacy. The issue germane to the planet's biodiversity is not whether some species will be little affected by warming (regardless of the fact that they might be devastated by acidificiation and stratification...) it is whether the greater part of biodiversity will be negatively affected, and whether humans will be negatively affected.
Tell me, are you a taxonomic member of member of, or do you eat, organic-walled plankton? If not, why is it so wonderful that the oceans are warming? And why is warming wonderful for the calciferous plankton? How will warming counteract the results of a RCP6.0 trajectory of CO₂ emissions, which will see the polar regions become effectively completely inhospitable to calcifiers by 2100 as a result of acidification? How will warming counteract the effects of acidification by 2300, at which time it will effectively be impossible to find a living reef anywhere in the world if the RPC6.0 trajectory is followed? And what of the marine taxa other than planktonic non-calcifiers, which will be severely impacted by warming, as illustrated in figure 2 here:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n7/full/nclimate2650.htm
Do you pair of yokels understand that the oceans will continue to acidify for centuries after emissions plateau? As long as the oceans are a net sink for the fossil carbon that we emit, they will continue to decrease in pH. And the longer we take to stop the increase of atmospheric CO₂, the longer it will take for ocean acidification to cease, and the lower will be the final pH. It's an ecological time bomb that will detonate in exquisite slow motion long after your descendants ten generations hence are pushing up daisies. And warming will make it worse, no matter how some species respond to an increase in temperautre in isolation in a model...
In the face of this, how is the non-sequitur of the "good news" that you perceive in the Doblin and Sebille paper actually good news?
Things to get used to.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wave-dead-sea-creatures-hits-chiles-beaches-… .
No worries, it will only last a few decades.
The pair of clowns we have ducking and diving are what Thomas Malthus [1] ( in another context) 'superficial observers.' Pick a factoid and make it mean whatever it is they want it to mean even if it is the complete inverses of the intent of the factoid provider.
There is no real answer to this type of inane argument, it is ultimately self destructive. For even pointing out useful sources of oceanic science, under the rubric of Oceanography such as Tom Garrison's excellent Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science where from Chapter 8 (as it is in my International Student edition) the biosystems of the oceans are described in broad detail.
Will our resident pair (for now) clowns study this and learn from it, also taking in the other sections on oceanic structure, currents and chemistry? A very necessary pre-requisite so as to understand the plethora of plankton species with widely different structures, sizes, origins and ultimate development, Chapter 14 is especially relevant here.
Thomas Malthus is much misunderstood and misused, his 'An Essay on the Principle of Population, from which the 'superficial observers' description came is one of many republished in The Future of Nature which should be absorbed by the likes of our 'off key' commenters here or will they remain forever 'superficial observers'?
@bernard
"except that I did talk about the subject of the paper."
hardley, you want to talk about everything but, namely "Ocean acidification" and your #74 "Plankton aren’t the only taxon in the oceans – do you understand how temperature increase affects the rest of the millions of species that live in the marine ecosystems of the world?"
"Global Warming" and "plankton" you avoid because the latest paper from respected academic Martina Doblin says they're likely good. You're scurrying to find other "Dooms".
Scientific Enquiry 2, Alarmism 0.
:)
Hardley - "Look! A White-Tailed Deer! Eastern North American ecosystems are really healthy!"
Poor delusional Hardley. The difference between my mentioning of White Tailed Deer and Wild Turkeys as compared to your "spider" spotting, is that I never said their abundance had anything to do with climate change, whereas you want people to believe your spider spotting was witnessing climate change first hand.
Yours is a biased ideologically driven conclusion, whereas mine was an unbiased observation, noting that change can, does, has and will happen without always jumping to the conclusion that global warming caused it, and that it can only lead to disaster.
Of course, you've always been too ideologically dumbed down to know the difference.
That's why you are still my favorite.
Kamoen @86 - Thanks for the peer reviewed paper that proves that red tides and El Nino's are newly discovered phenomenon's that will last for a "few decades"...
Very informative.
Bernard - “except that I did talk about the subject of the paper.”
I didn't see where the subject of the paper was ocean acidification, though Doblin has published several papers on the subject. Were those the papers you were talking about?
Bernard - "Pioneer/weed species have been discussed, and sea jellies particularly have been talked about in the context of warming"
Yes, I am fully aware that the impacts of the predicted future catastrophic-only climate change scenarios have the potential to be beneficial only to those things we as humans deem as a nuisance.
I learned that on Deltoid.
Betula, I am your favorite because you actually can learn how idiotic your ideas are through me. Thanks for the compliment. Dork.
You white tailed deer are miles worse than my 'spider' for a number of reasons. You are a nitwit and pick and choose what you want to say. First of all, I didn't see one spider. I saw lots of inverts including spiders. Many thousands, even excluding the collemboles. All along a narrow linear transect across a massive park. This mean we explored about 0.000000000000001% of it. If you extrapolate that over the entire landscape, then there must have been billions of inverts moving around in habitats that should have been frozen solid and buried under snow. It was not normal by a long shot - the collemboles are normally active at the earliest in early March, NOT in late January. If was definitely climate-related. Now one can argue if this is also correlated with AGW, but the literature is full of descriptive studies showing examples of species exhibiting strange phenological patterns that strongly correlate with changing climate patterns. You don't read or understand them. That's your problem. Instead of engaging in even the most basal intellectual discourse, your only recourse is the humorless 'He saw a spider!' comment. I've let it pass essentially because you are such a simpleton when it comes to the field that I feel pangs of sympathy for your profound ignorance.
The deer example as a proxy for the health of North American ecosystems is appallingly bad on several levels. First, they have been released from predation by their two most important natural enemies, Gray wolves and Mountain lions, which were extirpated from the eastern US in the 19th century. You've clearly never heard of the 'enemy release hypothesis' in the invasion ecology literature (e.g. Keane and Crawley, 2002, TREE), but white tailed deer are excellent examples of this in terms of an outbreaking native species. Second, the deer favor open woodlands and forest edge habitats, which the European settlers created by felling the great deciduous primevel forests in the east. One might also argue that important brood parasites, brown-headed cowbirds, are thriving and that this is also a strong indicator of the health of eastern North American ecosystems. But of course that's nonsense as well: cowbirds were once restricted to forest edges and patches in the midwest, but spread rapidly as forests were cleared and new edge habitats were created. They are now important brood parasites of many forest species that have not co-evolved within them, including warblers and vireos. There's little doubt that heavy brood parasitism is contributing to the decline of passerines normally associated with deep forests.
Essentially, I give your willful ignorance a pass, Betula, but even for me its often too much to stomach.
GSW, the study says nothing general of the sort. Its no use linking to the corporate media or blogs to interpret the results - the ones you link are generally agenda driven, like the shitty piece by Hollett yesterday, who tried to extrapolate this small study to explain the fate of entire marine ecosystems. Reading his article was cringe-inducing, and was anti-environmental propaganda in its most brazen form.
Here's a Nature article from 2004 which discusses the effects of warming oceans on trophic interactions that underpin the functioning of marine ecosystems. Species do not exist in isolation - they interact - and if different species in food webs respond differently to climate warming, as a huge volume of evidence shows, then this will unravel these food webs, simplify ecosystems and reduce their ability to function effectively. Ecologist Daniel Janzen once said that the 'Ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions'. Adapting to warming at the species level through phenotypic plasticity is therefore only one side of a many sided coin. We already know in Europe that rapid warming is desynchronizing food webs involving plants, insects, and insectivorous birds as well as insect parasitoids. This is because the various species in these chains are all responding differently in terms of behavior and physiology to (1) increased winter temperatures, (2) warmer night minimum temperatures. This is particulalry a problem for species that overwinter as eggs, and birds that are tropical migrants that depend on them during the breeding season. Its complicated but the emerging patterns are indeed worrying. Food webs are being simplified. There's no reason to believe that it will be any different in marine food chains. Its warming at rates that will lead to taxon-specific responses. In terms of interactions, the prognosis is not at all good.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/full/nature02808.html
More:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1581/2561.short
If you don't understand the significance of this, then that's tough. It is well documented and the evidence for mistimed interactions if large and still growing.
Still more:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal…
And these studies are the metaphorical tip an iceberg. Go through to the Web of Science search engine and there are many studies detailing ecophysiological costs associated with the recent warming across both marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Sure, some species/species interactions are adapting - thus far. Many are not. Furthermore, we are only in the relatively early stages of warming to which the planet is committed, as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. There is a temporal lag and the results of current studies reflect conditions imposed by atmospheric changes in C02 in the 1980s and 90s at the latest, not more recently. This is because for deterministic systems operating at vast scales, changes in physical properties are manifested down the road and not anywhere close to instantaneously. The way that deniers speak, its as if C02 put into the atmosphere on Monday is reflected in abiotic (e.g temperature, precipitation) and biotic (e.g. ecosystem properties) changes on Tuesday. I have to admit that I rarely have met such a group of concrete-headed non-brainiacs in my life.
A slideshow from Doblin.
http://slideplayer.com/slide/7852196/
A slideshow from M Doblin.
http://slideplayer.com/slide/7852196/
Poor Hardley, how little you remember.
A few lines from your Algonquin trip have always stood out...
Hardley - “On our trip we experienced climate change at first hand”
Hardley - "In my work as an ecologist I work on shifting zones, and here I could see it in real.”
And when I called you out on it back in May of 2012, after much delay, you responded -
Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
But then, several comments later, you has a change of heart when you realized you were caught -
Hardley - "I also noted that insect and spider activity in the park was occurring in January"
While your friend was getting frostbite, during the "warm winter" correct?
Don't worry Hardley, you will always remain the obvious favorite....the words of your imagination put you there.
Li D - Using a link to a Doblin slideshow as proof that those linking Doblin's recent paper on plankton are wrong to do so.
Doblin vs. Doblin
Only on Deltoid.
Battie, try and address my previous posts. Start with the one where I talked about billion of inverts across a landscape or ecosystem-level scale. if i saw a lot along a simple linear transect, I'd bet there's a ton more elsewhere. See how far you get. And then see how far you get with the other papers I linked on more recent posts.
As for frostbite, you clot, the winter was one of the warmest on record. That doesn't mean there aren't cold days - and we experienced both extremes. You are so desperate for vindication that you conflate 'warmer' with 'continual warmth'. We were fortunate that it was as mild as it was, because the area is close to the boreal forest zone which is characterized by bitter cold. Humans can suffer frostbite at temperatures as high as -2 to -4 C... which in terms of normal are still mild.
Gosh you are desperate.. and pathetic. Your straws are so short they are invisible. You've lost. Big time. Go away, lick your wounds and come back when you can actually make an intelligible comment. Or let's see your brilliant knowledge of complex adaptive systems firsthand. I've linked to some studies in top journals. Let's see Betula work out his magic stuff and with ZERO expertise somehow dimiss the findings.
Here's another:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/819
Notably: "climate zones are shifting northward at speeds one order of magnitude faster than the trees’ ability to migrate (36, 50)".
Yes, its that little topic of thermo-neutral zones and temperature optima at the species level. Ever heard of it Battie? Of course you haven't. What else is new. But no doubt you'll go back to your usual boring smears and steer well clear of this discussion, as you have given yourself more than enough rope to hang yourself with in terms of ecology.
You are sssoooo easy to demolish. My advice is for you to go to university, learn something, and come back in 5-10 years.
Martina Doblin: 65 career papers and 1158 citations, h-factor 19.
John 'Betula' Birch: 0 career papers and 0 citations, h-factor 0.
Yes Deltoiders, this is the intellectual acumen we are up against.
Yes it is those vacuous ‘superficial observers’ who are so dumb they don't realise how dumb they come across as.
Hardley - "Start with the one where I talked about billion of inverts across a landscape or ecosystem-level scale. if i saw a lot along a simple linear transect, I’d bet there’s a ton more elsewhere"
So this is your witnessing climate change first hand? A bet?Talk about desperate...
I prefer starting with this one -
Hardley - “As far as first hand goes, I’d need to look into the soil. But given I was there in winter (a warm winter at that), of course I can’t describe things first hand.”
Give it up.
"You are sssoooo easy to demolish"....by using your own words.
Lionel - "Yes it is those vacuous ‘superficial observers’ who are so dumb they don’t realise how dumb they come across as"
Just because you don't agree with Doblin's plankton research, that is no reason to call her names....
And without further ado, Betula proves my last point.
Lionel, since the comment was originated with a Doblin reference, regarding a paper I didn't post and haven't argued against....why don't explain who else you could be talking about?
Thanks.
Something else is of course the fact that Battie, too, is experiencing climate change first hand.
Because just about everyone on the planet is.
Kampen is correct, the climate is always changing.
The difference is that when I experience it over such a short spatial scale, the patients at Deltoid remind me it's just weather, yet when Hardley experiences it over the an even shorter scale (several days and some spiders)....it's climate change first hand.
Welcome to Deltoid
Since Battie cannot debate me anywhere higher than my shoelaces, his only recourse is to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on et al. ad nauseum about an article he stumbled on written by a scribe at the NIOO back in 2012. This is his tiny little shell from which he snipes away.
As it turns out, I have witnessed climate change first hand on many occasions Battie. Here are some examples:
1. Identifying carabids for an experiment in 2000-2002 at a biodiversity field plot in central Holland in 2002 we collected several southerly species in pitfall traps in large numbers but which previously had been only recorded 2 or 3 times in the country as individuals. In the same plot we were the first to see the spider (there you go, Battie) Argiope bruenechii which is normally found in warm, central/southern habitats. Similarly, I am seeing plants with southerly distributions spreading into the country - all examples of climate warming.
2. I am seeing large numbers of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, a native of the Mediterranean and North Africa, in spring and summer in the Netherlands. The species arrived in numbers in the 1990s and began overwintering as recently as 10 years ago. I immediately noticed the earlier generation as a sign of overwintering survival. Winter is a major biological control agent but, as a result of milder winters across many temperate regions of the world, this major crop pest is now surviving farther and farther north and into continental habitats. Its a species I am working on.
3. Two of the major Eurasian specialist natural enemies of the diamondback moth are two parasitic wasps, Diadegma semiclausum and Cotesia vestalis. The former prefers cooler biomes whereas the latter warmer biomes. The ranges of the two species have been divided in terms of latitude and elevation based on climatic preference, and until around 2010 D. semiclausum was the dominant species. However, recently we began to find an increasing number of C. vestalis wasps in our samples, along with an even more southerly parasitoid Dolichogenidea sicaria (which has been studied in Turkey). This is further proof that changes in climate are leading to range shifts.
4. While visiting a university in Bulgaria last year, we discussed some of the most serious pests of crops in the country. In the field, we observed several species in the Heteroptera and Coleoptera on maize and wheat that I was told were, until about 5 years ago, only found along the Mediterranean coasts and adjacent habitats. They began to expand northwards, I was informed by my colleague, as a result of warmer winters there - another example of climate change observed first hand.
5. In the Netherlands I work with several species of wild Brassica's in my research. The species in the genera Brassica and Sinapis are closely related and to reduce the risk of cross-pollination and genetic dilution, they exhibit quite distinct seasonal growth phenologies, in which each species has a very short life cycle and grows at different times of the year. However, this has rapidly begun to change. For the first gtime I have observed a rapid shift in one species - Brassica nigra - to earlier growth (e.g. May-June) rather than in July-August. In southern Europe wild Brassicas grow in different habitats at the same time (e.g. April-May) to avoid hot, dry summer conditions. This appears to be happening further to the north, as a result of warmer summers as well.
All this is strong first-hand evidence of climate change Battie.
So then: what's your next vacuous smear?
And once again Battie: have a go at some of the articles I copy-pasted on Deltoid yesterday. Better still: next year I will do a sabbatical in Colorado. I would be happy to debate you at a university of your choice face to face on the ecological effects of climate warming.
A warning however: you do realize I will annihilate you. I won't be nice about it either. I will expose each and every aspect of your stupidity in front of an academic audience. It would be a pleasure. Your only riposte will be to go back to the NIOO article while pleading with the audience to believe that you, a tree pruner, knows more than me, a qualified ecologist, on the effects of AGW. In the end, people will laugh at you. I did it to Lomborg and I will do it to you even more easily than I did it to him. He won't debate me again in a million years.
'the climate is always changing.'
By magic, huh Battie.
This is the dumbest meme I know of and they STILL serve it..
#11 the zombies. They should be given to three year old girls as suck puppets.
As wasps were mentioned above I was absolutely enthralled by the Chapter 'A Garden Inclosed' in Richard Dawkins' excellent book 'Climbing Mount Improbable'. The sequence of events in that narrative is far to complex to describe as can be seen if you dip your toes in the water here.
How will such complex ecosystem respond to climate change? I suspect very much and probably not good for the higher animals that rely upon the source of food that is the fruit populated and pollinated by those different species of wasp.
Kampen @12 - "By magic, huh Battie"
Yes Kampen, that's it, many years of magic....
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087207-ice-core-reveals-how-lush-…
@10.....Some questions:
Hardley, you mentioned 5 examples of species that, according to you, appear to be thriving and expanding their range.
1. Did you witness all this over the course of several days in the winter?
2. Of the species you discuss -
Do you conclude that range shift have never happened before, ever?
Do you conclude that this can only be a bad thing?
Do you conclude, from the examples you gave, that having the ability to expand their range over a short space of time is a bad trait?
Do you conclude that this can only be the result of a GAT rise of .8C over the past 150 years? I only ask because I noticed you didn't mention any temperature change in your examples..
Do you conclude that developing the undeveloped nations will stop species from having the catastrophic ability of being able to move/shift/adapt?
3. Have you ever seen the range shift of a species that wasn't considered to be a nuisance to man? Or do only the nuisance species have the ability to expand their range?
4. On another note - do most of your peer reviewed papers end with the conclusion that further research is needed?
Thanks.
Hardley - "Better still: next year I will do a sabbatical in Colorado. I would be happy to debate you at a university of your choice face to face on the ecological effects of climate warming"
I don't live in Colorado, but I have no doubt you have already concluded you will witness catastrophic climate change first hand when you get there.
It's ideologically predetermined.
Hardley - "A warning however: you do realize I will annihilate you. I won’t be nice about it either. I will expose each and every aspect of your stupidity in front of an academic audience. It would be a pleasure"
Since I can't be there. please explain to the audience how development of the undeveloped nations will reduce CO2 in the short and long run, and how this is predicted to stop species from being able to shift their range, and how this will prevent the predicted future catastrophic climate scenarios from coming to fruition.
Take a video and post it here.
Oh, and please include the part at the end, where you take a selfie signing an autograph to yourself in front of an adoring audience.
Thanks.
"How will such complex ecosystem respond to climate change?"
You don't know.
How will development of the undeveloped nations change the future response of the response you are unsure of?
You don't know.
But in the name of social justice, equality and fairness, we must push on....
Now our brainless tree pruner is putting words into my mouth. What else is new. Its you clowns who use and abuse the term 'catastrophic'. Its deliberate, of course; a feeble attempt to turn the discussion to extremes. Again, having debated and dismissed idiots like Betula many times over the past 20 years, I know exactly how they operate.
So here's an answer to his main question: "How will such complex ecosystems [sic] respond to climate change?".
We know enough. That food webs are unraveling and systems are being simplified as a result. We also know that systemic resilience and stability depends on species interaction networks and that these are being weakened by warming.
We also know enough also to say its stupid to experiment and simplify systems that sustain humanity and permit us to exist and persist. Most importantly, although systems may be quite resilient to change to a point, but we have no guarantee that the services these systems provide us are nearly so robust.
The Battie's of this world think that playing Russian Roulette with nature is perfectly OK. Most scientists and people with even a basic education disagree. This clearly says a lot about Battie's education.
Hardley - "So here’s an answer to his main question: “How will such complex ecosystems [sic] respond to climate change?”.
Only it's not my question, it's Lionels @14.
Remember, you are the smart one.
Hardley - "The Battie’s of this world think that playing Russian Roulette with nature is perfectly OK"
So highlighting your imagination is your answer to my questions?
Sorry about that I originally wrote ' such complex ecosystems' and then decided to indicate only that pertaining to the fig and the wasps that helped propagate it so dropped of the 's' from the plural omitting to add the requisite indefinite article 'a'.
Not that it makes an iota of difference for a Betula who likes to always argue by logical fallacy, mostly red herring and appears to not know how to get to Colorado, maybe he cannot see out for all those trees. Certainly something is blocking his view, preventing him obtaining a realistic view of the Earth and how fragile the ecosystems are.
Lionel - "Certainly something is blocking his view, preventing him obtaining a realistic view of the Earth and how fragile the ecosystems are"
This is your conclusion based on the fact that I asked questions you can't answer?
You're too obvious.
Lionel - "appears to not know how to get to Colorado"
Lionel would like me to burn fossil fuels to fly 1700 miles to listen to Hardley give to same speech he gives here on a daily basis...
It would seem Lionel doesn't have "a realistic view" of how wasteful that is.....or the amount of CO2 that would be emitted and it's long term effects on "the Earth and how fragile the ecosystems are”
You are very inconsiderate Lionel, to the point of being a denier. Think of the children...
I think Betula need his own thread for this.
He can start his collection at the bottom of the ocean,
which is a sad reflection on our throw away society threatening <a href="http://static.latimes.com/okeanos-explorer/the species seen here.
Not that the intellectually impoverished species of ‘superficial observers’ to which Betula belongs care much.
Thinking about that can seen in the second link above, did it really survive the increase in pressure at that depth? Using a value of 10.06 meters for every 14.5 times increase in pressure that would give a pressure of 7130.3, assuming constant density all the way down — not likely but at least we have a ball park number.
@26 - Now you are all over the map...incoherent.
What does any of that have to do with you wanting me to burn more fossil fuels, like Hardley does?
Looks like my final link failed in #26 above, second attempt..
Poor Betula, his cognitive limitations strike again. What a dork!
It's not the pressure that would damage the can, but the deformation beyond the elasticity of the metal. If the contents are solid/semisolid/liquid then they won't compress very much under that pressure, so the can won't "shrink" beyond the elastic limit of the metal. Such a can filled with a gas would crumple.
Yes, I thought about that, but the can looked too clean and the lighting was as if in air not water and artificial light would have cast stronger shadows.
Both GSW and Betula seem to think that because I considered the response of some planktonic taxa to warming, together with the response of other marine taxa to both warming and to acidicification, that I have somehow not addressed the Doblin and Sebille paper.
What a pair of persistent illogical thinkers.
The bottom line is this. Some planktonic species will be minimally harmed by oceanic warming. Other planktonic species will be harmed by warming, and a whole suite of higher marine taxa will be harmed by ocean warming. Of the planktonic species that might not be harmed by warming, many will be harmed by ocean acidification and by ocean stratification (and hence anoxia) that results from warming, to say nothing how these synergise with each other and with other negative impacts that humans have on the marine environment.
So where is the "good news" in this? GSW (incorrectly) trumpets Doblin and Sebille as being good news for oceans, and Betula supports him in this nonsense, but any objective reading of the state of the oceans as a consequence of carbon emissions would reach an entirely different conclusion.
But let's put the onus of proof on them, given that they've made the claim. What exactly is the good news in Doblin and Sebille? How does this paper indicate that the majority of marine taxa are now not at risk from warming resulting from human carbon dioxide emissions? How does this paper indicate that the majority of marine taxa are now not at risk from acidification resulting from human carbon dioxide emissions, or from acidification-confounded warming resulting from said carbon dioxide emissions?
Don't be shy, boys. You're making a claim - explain just how it works and why you're right and thousands of ecologists, chemists and physicists are wrong.
[Bah. Tag fail...]
Both GSW and Betula seem to think that because I considered the response of some planktonic taxa to warming, together with the response of other marine taxa to both warming and to acidicification, that I have somehow not addressed the Doblin and Sebille paper.
What a pair of persistent illogical thinkers.
The bottom line is this. Some planktonic species will be minimally harmed by oceanic warming. Other planktonic species will be harmed by warming, and a whole suite of higher marine taxa will be harmed by ocean warming. Of the planktonic species that might not be harmed by warming, many will be harmed by ocean acidification and by ocean stratification (and hence anoxia) that results from warming, to say nothing how these synergise with each other and with other negative impacts that humans have on the marine environment.
So where is the "good news" in this? GSW (incorrectly) trumpets Doblin and Sebille as being good news for oceans, and Betula supports him in this nonsense, but any objective reading of the state of the oceans as a consequence of carbon emissions would reach an entirely different conclusion.
But let's put the onus of proof on them, given that they've made the claim. What exactly is the good news in Doblin and Sebille? How does this paper indicate that the majority of marine taxa are now not at risk from warming resulting from human carbon dioxide emissions? How does this paper indicate that the majority of marine taxa are now not at risk from acidification resulting from human carbon dioxide emissions, or from acidification-confounded warming resulting from said carbon dioxide emissions?
Don't be shy, boys. You're making a claim - explain just how it works and why you're right and thousands of ecologists, chemists and physicists are wrong.
[Third time lucky?]
Both GSW and Betula seem to think that because I considered the response of some planktonic taxa to warming, together with the response of other marine taxa to both warming and to acidicification, that I have somehow not addressed the Doblin and Sebille paper.
What a pair of persistent illogical thinkers.
The bottom line is this. Some planktonic species will be minimally harmed by oceanic warming. Other planktonic species will be harmed by warming, and a whole suite of higher marine taxa will be harmed by ocean warming. Of the planktonic species that might not be harmed by warming, many will be harmed by ocean acidification and by ocean stratification (and hence anoxia) that results from warming, to say nothing how these synergise with each other and with other negative impacts that humans have on the marine environment.
So where is the "good news" in this? GSW (incorrectly) trumpets Doblin and Sebille as being good news for oceans, and Betula supports him in this nonsense, but any objective reading of the state of the oceans as a consequence of carbon emissions would reach an entirely different conclusion.
But let's put the onus of proof on them, given that they've made the claim. What exactly is the good news in Doblin and Sebille? How does this paper indicate that the majority of marine taxa are now not at risk from warming resulting from human carbon dioxide emissions? How does this paper indicate that the majority of marine taxa are now not at risk from acidification resulting from human carbon dioxide emissions, or from acidification-confounded warming resulting from said carbon dioxide emissions?
Don't be shy, boys. You're making a claim - explain just how it works and why you're right and thousands of ecologists, chemists and physicists are wrong.
Whew.
The perils of posting from a mobile 'phone...
Let's think about your magic for a moment Betula.
How is the current warming event a natural one, rather than the result of human emissions? You're welcome to do an analysis, with data and references presented.
Once you answered that question, how is the rate of the current warming event comparable to climatic changes in the past? Again, please bolster your answer with data, references, and any analysis on which you might rely.
And for the win, on what basis can you reassure the world that the contemporary rate of climate change is benign for biodiversity, and for humanity's reliance on ecosystems? Once more, an answer based in data, analysis and credible references are necessary for you to establish a case.
Betula and GSW, you both seem to credit yourselves with more scientific acumen than is characteristic of the world's professional chemists and biologists. So here's a supplementary question for you, to follow on from the ones above.
What effect will warming have on the adsorption and desorption of organic and inorganic contaminants to microplastic pollution in the marine environment?
And just for the sheer curiosity of it, are you able to comment on how your "good news" warming will mitigate the way that acidification and stratification will interact with the impact of macro plastic pollution in the marine environment? Assuming that the "good news" results in no negative interaction, that is...
Bernard J
I know exactly where you are coming from WRT microplastic and macroplastic pollution but I suspect Betuala will come back with an inane accusation that you are all over the map.
After all the rules here are, in the eyes of Betula and GSW, that they can drop in new 'factoids' but we must restrict ourselves to answering these and these alone. To do otherwise would overload their cognitive ability, causing a synaptic malfunction resulting in another inane factoid drop IOW more bubkes.
#15 where magically an 'ice core' was drilled out of ocean sediment. Battie's magic.
I have just stumbled back into a thread at Greg Laden's blog that has recently been awoken by somebody exhibiting nuclear grade denial with arrogance and aggression.
It will be obvious which commenter I have in mind. And they let people like this have guns!
From Doblin article - "Co-author Dr Erik van Sebille from the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment at Imperial College London said, "Until now, it has not been possible to understand how plankton will experience climate change, because they move at the mercy of ocean currents."
Bernard begs to differ with the scientist - "The bottom line is this. Some planktonic species will be minimally harmed by oceanic warming. Other planktonic species will be harmed by warming"
Because Bernard's ideological thinking dictates the one-way future scenarios.
Bernard - "What exactly is the good news in Doblin and Sebille?
From the article -
"In most locations, they endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming."
"Now we have modelled this ocean drift on a global scale, it will be possible to get a much better handle on how these tiny critters must have evolved to cope with temperature changes," he said"
So having a better understanding of how plankton cope with temperature changes and finding they are more resilient than the all knowing Bernard thought, is considered bad news for Bernard, because all news is predicted future bad news.
This message has been approved by the Deltoid Staff.
@40 - "15 where magically an ‘ice core’ was drilled out of ocean sediment. Battie’s magic"
No Kampen, the ice core is the tool used to expose your magic trick.
Now you will have to come up with a new trick.
Bernard - "How is the current warming event a natural one, rather than the result of human emissions?"
I don't doubt a percent of it is.
Why don't you tell me what percent of warming over the past 150 years is proven to be man made, and then tell me what percent of that number will be lowered over how long a period of time as a result of developing the poor nations.... and how this will affect the interaction of everything on earth at every location, above and below the ocean....in the short and long run.
Thanks.
"I have just stumbled back into a thread at Greg Laden’s blog that has recently been awoken by somebody exhibiting nuclear grade denial with arrogance and aggression."
So same ol' same ol'.
We've got betty doing that here for *ages*.
I wonder when it'll get a clue?
What percentage?
I know Wow and he is a Poptech acolyte to boot, plus I think he is dyslexic.
Bernard - "What percentage?"
Exactly.
Look at Wow!
All this time and I bet he still can't back up what it is he believes I deny....
Impressive.
I didn't say that it was bad news, and I already had a good idea of the resilience of some groups of plankton. Sorta comes with the territory of one of my jobs... And have a bit of a trawl through the intertubes; I think that I've even mentioned a conversation on the subject that I had with Gus Hallegraf a few years ago.
Reread my posts Betula. You're missing the point. The issue isn't that organic-walled may be resilient to warming, it's that many (if not most) calciferous plankton will be harmed by acidification, and that a huge swathe of non-planktonic taxa will be affected by both warming and acidification, and by the stratification/anoxia resulting from warming.
I keep telling you this. You keep avoiding it. I've asked you repeatedly to actually explain why it's such "good news", but you and GSW won't look at the big picture. Just why is that, little troll?
What's wrong Betula, can't you put a number to your prevarication?
It's your typical response, your modus operandi - concede just enough that you don't appear to be an out-and-out denier, but don't say anything that doesn't leave you the ability to continue to maintain a denialist stance.
So, once again - what percentage of warming is due to human activity? And what is the "good news" for the planet in the Doblin and Sebille paper?
Can anybody tell me what species of, I think, spider mite these are?
Photographed in Central Southern England two days ago.
Bernard - "I’ve asked you repeatedly to actually explain why it’s such “good news”.
Because - "In most locations, they endure temperature extremes that go beyond what is predicted by models of global warming.”
What kind of news is it? Nice news?
"Now we have modelled this ocean drift on a global scale, it will be possible to get a much better handle on how these tiny critters must have evolved to cope with temperature changes,”
And this? Indifferent news?
It's ok Bernard, I know that all news that is not bad news is not news to you...
#53 - "Newly hatched spiders are bright yellow with a single black mark on the abdomen, but change color with maturity (“Garden Spider”)".
http://www.wou.edu/~baumgare/European_Garden_Spider
"Reread my posts Betula."
Ah, but there's no point to Betty doing that, because it's not going to bother with accepting what you wrote.
Nothing you say can ever make Betty visit reality for a brief chat, so it will continue to ignore posts and make shit up.
Just like poptart, really.
"I keep telling you this. You keep avoiding it."
Which is made easier for betty when it refuses to read your posts.
Betty isn't here to comprehend anything.
Just spout bollocks.
Bernard - "What’s wrong Betula, can’t you put a number to your prevarication?"
Thus the question to you, which led to other questions to you, which led to no answers from you....just questions.
Ah, nothing like visiting hours at The Deltoid Asylum, where the present is the future and the future is always tragic...
#44, what ice core? The one that goes back 14 million years or the one whose base is actually in Cambrian times?
The climate has been changing by "magic" since before mankind existed Kampen, only it didn't know it was by magic, because you weren't around to suggest it...
Betula, I see that you're still posting without offering any substantive response to questions intended to get to the important points.
Keep at it though. All you do it continue to prove to all who read this (GSW excepted) that you have nothing to offer except your belief (feigned or real, it doesn't matter) in the emperor's new clothes.
For those with a slightly more rational bent that Betula, the rabid opposer of the implications of climate physic/chemistry/ecology, comes another sign of the consequences of warming:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4459228.htm
Now it's reefs and mangroves. Hugely important ecosystems for a large section of humans, and plants and animals, that live along tropical and subtropical coasts.
And this is still just the very beginning. Another few decades to centuries of this will see profound shifts and collapses of biologically and economically important ecosystems around the planet.
But this will be more "good news" for the Denialati...
Bah. Take 2.
For those with a slightly more rational bent that Betula, the rabid opposer of the implications of climate physic/chemistry/ecology, comes another sign of the consequences of warming:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4459228.htm
Now it's reefs and mangroves. Hugely important ecosystems for a large section of humans, and plants and animals, that live along tropical and subtropical coasts.
And this is still just the very beginning. Another few decades to centuries of this will see profound shifts and collapses of biologically and economically important ecosystems around the planet.
But this will be more "good news" for the Denialati...
My questions to Bernard @45 :
"Why don’t you tell me what percent of warming over the past 150 years is proven to be man made, and then tell me what percent of that number will be lowered over how long a period of time as a result of developing the poor nations…. and how this will affect the interaction of everything on earth at every location, above and below the ocean….in the short and long run."
My answers from Bernard @61 -
"I see that you’re still posting without offering any substantive response to questions intended to get to the important points"
The Deltoid Asylum.
Bernard seeing "another sign of the consequences of warming" lets his imagination get the best of him and links this at #62 -
"It's not clear why the mangroves have died"
"the whole fringe is dead"
"about 50 per cent of the mangroves along the coast has died"
"The cause is not conclusively known"
"if the trees do not grow back"
"There are some species that recover"
"Not knowing the cause is going to really hamper my capacity to be sure of what's - how to answer that question"
"If we do not see recovery"
"So we have got some window of time"
"you know to either assist with planting if that is necessary, it may not be"
"But we just need to know what's going on"
"urgent funding is needed "
In summary:
We have no clew, we aren't sure, it's all dead, about 50% is dead, they may recover, we don't know, we may not have to do anything, we have time, we need funding.
Thanks Bernard, you're a genius.
Why should I answer any of your questions?
Your questions are designed to distract from the difficulties in which you find yourself: your questions are a non-stop, instinctively reflexive pointing at squirrels whenever someone corners you. You almost never answer anything that's put to you, especially if it requires a scientific interpretation or understanding.
Which leads me to your "interpretation" of the WT mangrove piece. Your spin of the reporting shows your ideology, which is to run from anything that might involve money that doesn't go into your pocket. Not that any research would cost you a cent, because you're not an Australian...
This magnitude of mangrove die-off is on a large scale, which is of profound import if it expands over the next few years, and so it is very much worthy of "urgent funding" however violently your knee-jerking greed gene is activated at the mention of such.
As to the language around the cause of the die-off, that's usual (and appropriate) scientific caution. Your spin of it shows that you can't or won't understand how scientists speak. The telling thing about this phenomenon is that there is no immediate evidence of the usual agents that harm mangroves, at least in Australia. No large flooding of fresh water into the area, no acid sulphate run-off, no eutrophication. These sites are in remote locations, so the water is unlikely to be contaminated. And from the photos I've seen I doubt that it's insect defoliation (on which I've worked, in Avicenia marina). See for example here:
https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater/news-and-events/large-scale-mangr…
It's not the usual defoliation pattern from herbivory.
Of course - and this will make you leap up and ejaculate in triumphant glee - this is not to say that the cause is direct physiological intolerance to warming. It could be an interaction of a proximal causative agent with the distal effect of warming. Parsimony indicates though that the highly anomalous warming in the oceans off northern Australia - the same warming that is imposing bleaching on ~90% of the Great Barrier Reef - will be at least in part contributing to the mangrove death. Or perhaps you deny too that ocean warming is causing the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef...?
It's fascinating to watch you deny that warming has any serious ecological consequence, and to even deny humanity's contribution to warming. I knew that you wouldn't - or couldn't - put a percentage to the amount to which contemporary warming can be attributed to humans. So try this figure: 110%... Of course, that's the mean of a Gaussian probability distribution function, so there is a confidence interval around it, but this is ultimately about the central tendency of available evidence (cf. AR5 fig. 10.5).
And now it's your turn (yet again) Betula. What do you understand to be the percentage of human contribution to global warming, and on what evidence/data do you base your conclusions?
And for the umpteenth time you timorous yellow belly, what's the "good news" about global warming?
So Betty, once again we do nothing to prevent destruction of mangroves and reefs because we are not 100% sure what the root cause is.
Pah! What is most likely at work are the effects of man's dead hand on the environment from warming seas and falling pH. Other forms of pollution could also be at work. Complex systems require complex understanding.
Thanks for the spider - you passed that test!
Bernard - "It’s fascinating to watch you deny that warming has any serious ecological consequence, and to even deny humanity’s contribution to warming"
Not sure what you are watching, because what you are seeing is all in your head.
Because I question what is in your head, doesn't mean I deny what you are seeing.
Bernard - "As to the language around the cause of the die-off, that’s usual (and appropriate) scientific caution"
So the scientists are lying when they say they don't know, or I am lying when I post them saying they don't know?
Lionel - So Betty, once again we do nothing to prevent destruction of mangroves and reefs because we are not 100% sure what the root cause is...
No, we take immediate unknown action to prevent the definitive unknown cause from continuing...
Lionel - "Thanks for the spider – you passed that test!"
If it were a spider we would know the cause, because we would be seeing the cause first hand.
Me @45 - "Why don’t you tell me what percent of warming over the past 150 years is proven to be man made?"
Bernard @66- Bernard - "Why should I answer any of your questions?"
Bernard @66 - "What do you understand to be the percentage of human contribution to global warming, and on what evidence/data do you base your conclusions?"
Me - Why should I answer any of your questions?
This has been another episode of....."Visiting Hours At The Deltoid Asylum"
Bernard - "The telling thing about this phenomenon is that there is no immediate evidence of the usual agents that harm mangroves, at least in Australia".
Lionel - "Pah! What is most likely at work are the effects of man’s dead hand on the environment from warming seas and falling pH"
Of course, a simple check shows that there were 2 major cyclones (Cat 5) that hit the area just over a year ago....cyclones Marcia and Lam.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/massive-approaching-cyclone-calamity-austral…
And we do know that these storms can damage Mangroves like cyclone yasi did....
"The impact on mangroves by cyclone yasi has been dramatic with vast areas killed. It is believed the
deaths were caused by the storm surge that increased the inundation of salt water on mangroves
and salt grasses to a level that these species were not accustomed"
http://www.wettropics.gov.au/site/user-assets/docs/effects-of-cyclone-y…
Keep playing stupid guys, you're good at it.
And what is increasing the severity of such events?
Not a difficult question.
Lionel - "And what is increasing the severity of such events?"...."Not a difficult question"
If it's not a difficult question, then why was there no mention of cyclones in the article or in the responses from you and Bernard?
Now that I have helped you along where you couldn't help yourselves, why don't you show me the link that explains the direct cause of the severity of both of these cyclones, how past severe cyclones are different, how mangroves have come back from cyclone damage in the past, and what you would have done to prevent the cyclones or the severity of the cyclones...
Thanks
Betula, you wonder why I won't answer your questions with alacrity when I ask you to answer some fundamental ones posed by me. The answer is that my questions get to the nub of your many scientifically-unsupported statements made here, whilst yours are intended to divert from the heat placed on you by people with understanding. Nevertheless, I do respond to your questions, although it's a fruitless exercise because your response is always to move on to your next logical fallacy.
Betula asks about cyclones. The reason I didn't include storm damage as a likely option is that the 15-16 season was a squib in the cyclone record:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Australian_region_cyclone…
and I'd have thought that anyone with nous would have known that or had the ability to easily determine it.
The two cyclones that Betula refers - Marcia and Lam - hit in January last year, almost 18 months ago, so they're hardly likely to be responsible for a current die-off. Ouch - it pays to check dates, huh Betula?
Further, Marcia was nowhere near Carpentaria at all, and Cyclone Lam's eye passed ~350 km north of the site at Limmen Bight and ~400 km north of the mangroves at Karumba. Such distances are hardly going to wipe out mangroves, and anyway a look at the damage would tell anyone with half a clue that it's not storm destruction that has caused the mangrove death.
One more thing about geography, whilst I'm at it... The fact that the two sites are tucked into the two southern, relatively still corners of the Gulf of Carpentaria, away from the deeper ocean of waters of the Arafura and Coral Seas, further lends suspicion to the idea that warm water is involved.
In Betula's world it's "anything but warming". Every single ecologist I know fervently wishes the same thing, but unlike Betula they have the objectivity to not engage in distorted, wishful, motivated reasoning to attempt to sweep human-caused climate change under the carpet as a cause. Further, when they consider warming as an impact, they're always looking for cofactors and confounders, so Betula's off the mark in assuming that scientists are wishing for warming to be the cause of all environmental harm that's observed.
And Betula, I notice that you STILL haven't told us what your estimate or best understanding is for the human contribution to global warming, after having asked it of me (and having received an answer...) after I first (and then repeatedly) asked it of you. What's the problem - are you too busy changing your soiled pants every time I pose the question?
Correction, Marcia and Lam were in February last year, two weeks after I thought they'd formed. I should read my own links instead of relying on memory.
At least I was in the right season though...
And my point about timing remains unaffected.
Oh, and Betula...
You're welcome.
The cause of most, even almost all individual occurences of cancer is unknown. Basically the truth is no-one has ever seen a cell literally becoming tumorous while being able to interpret that process as such.
However, the statistical propensity for the occurence of cancers is quite well known. Most (at least 50%) is genetically defined, a large part of the remainder is environmental defined (e.g. benzene, asbestos and other silicates, tobacco smoke).
Battie's mangrove reasoning would lead directly to her death if she did the same reasoning after receiving a diagnosis about a third of all people will get. The Batty thing seems to be she'd be surprised all the way. Because she cannot fathom a cause - even if it is tobacco, since lung cancer can also occur in individuals who have never been near smoke, she cannot accept the effect and do something about it.
Whilst Betula-la-land continues with his own peculiar brand of deception sea levels rise and waves become more powerful as revealed here: Sea-level Rise Has Claimed Five Whole Islands in the Pacific: First Scientific Evidence
Which of course is 'all over the map' climate change having far reaching interlinked consequences.
Bernard - "The two cyclones that Betula refers – Marcia and Lam – hit in January last year, almost 18 months ago,"...,"Ouch – it pays to check dates, huh Betula?
What I said - "2 major cyclones (Cat 5) that hit the area just over a year ago"
Bernard - "Correction, Marcia and Lam were in February last year, two weeks after I thought they’d formed"
No Bernard, 15-16 months ago is not a 2 week difference from 18 months ago.
"Ouch – it pays to check dates" huh Bernard?
Bernard - "anyway a look at the damage would tell anyone with half a clue that it’s not storm destruction that has caused the mangrove death"
Sure it is - As it says in the link I provided at #73 regarding cyclone Yasi -
"caused by the storm surge that increased the inundation of salt water on mangroves and salt grasses to a level that these species were not accustomed"
In Bernard's world, it’s nothing but warming...
Bernard - "And my point about timing remains unaffected"
When were the picture taken?
@79 - Kampen thinks the mangrove died from cancer.
Next.
Straw man. I didn't say it was different from 18 months ago, I said that it was two weeks different from January.
And the 18 months thing - you know as well as everyone else that was an approximation to reiterate the fact that the storm were from the southern summer before last. But tell us, Betula, how do two storms that occured two summers previously, with one at the very least 350 km away (yes, I noticed that you didn't go near that fact...) and the other 1,100 km away from the nearest affected mangroves (you definitely didn't go near that one...) manage to inflict storm damage on said reefs? Damage that resulted in the death of the trees but not in the destruction of their branching structures? Damage such that "hundreds of kilometres of shoreline [were] affected and an area of mangroves that would be a kilometre-wide in some places"?
What is the precedent for storms inflicting storm damage in this way, at this distance, so long after their occurences?
And have you decided yet on the explanation that satisfies you as to why ecologists are concerned about warming as the cause, rather than some other factor? It can't be funding, because the current Australian government is so antipathetic to acknowledging climate change that they're gutting the funding of the science at the federal level: it would be much easier to get funding to investigate this if one claimed that it was "just" pollution, or a disease, or... heck, even if one suggested that it was nasty people with beards that were spreading agent orange around Australia's northern borders...
Also, as you're reduced to picking nits off squirrels in order to distract from your abject embarrassement, I would add that 16 months is closer to my 18 months than it is to "just over a year..." That is, if by "just" one uses the approximation (see you used that device, that "trick", too...) that it equates to less than or equal to 10%. At the very least, 16 months round to 18 months at the nearest 0.5 year unit, whilst "just over a year" would obviously round down to a year. So if you want to be pendantic...
And lastly, have you changed your pants yet and decided to man up about answering the question you were happy to ask of others yourself - to wit, what is your estimate for the percentage of global warming that is attributable to humans?
Given that it was supplied by James Cook University and they're some of the most vocal in raising the alarm, I would suspect that it's fairly recent. Scientists don't use stock photos for phenomena such as this. And if this phenomenon had occurred last year they'd have released the news and the photos last year - ecologists don't simply watch their field sites wither away without pointing it out to people...
But don't take my word for it. Contact Norm Duke and ask him yourself.
There are other photos too that you can pursue, in case you don't like the answer that Prof Duke might give you:
http://www.northweststar.com.au/story/3900533/scientists-alarmed-by-man…
And another thing Betula, all I said was that the mangrove die-back was "a sign of the consequences of warming". I didn't say that warming was the proximal cause in my original post, and I've reiterated since that other causal factors* may be involved. And yet you fight to refute any notion that warming was involved, even to the extent of suggesting that this is cyclone damage. Which reminds me of another point: why didn't Lam destroy all the mangroves north of Limmen Bight and Karumba, along the two coastlines that were much closer to the cyclone? And where are the reports of the mangroves damaged along the central Queensland coast by Marcia?
Finally, just in case you haven't already answered the question since I last posted... what is your estimate for the percentage of global warming that is attributable to humans?
[*I'm going to really put a bee in your bonnet and throw into the mix, simply because it behoves us to consider all cofactors and confounders, that warming-caused sea level rise may play a part - since 1993 the average rate of sea level rise at Karumba has been 6 mm per annum...
You're welcome.]
Yeah, yeah, you might as well make an issue of that too...
But it reminds me that I was going to ask you about what exactly is the "good news" about global warming and acidification for califying plakton, and for other taxa such as reef builders?
Hm?
Oh FFS.
That time at least it was my daughter's cat walking on my mouse before I finished edits.
Second attempt.
Yeah, yeah, you might as well make an issue of that too...
But it reminds me that I was going to ask you about what exactly is the "good news" about global warming and acidification for calcifying plakton, and for other taxa such as reef builders?
Hm?
Or should I just ask my daughter's cat?
Yes they do that! One would think they have been recruited by 'Smoky' Joe and 'Snowball' Jim of the Joe & Jim Puppet Show.
Just been reading Ray Bradley's 'Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists as the Earth Heated Up', which has nothing much that others have not written about but I like to read the perspectives of those who have been caught in the bun-fights instigated by vested interests.
Bernard - "And the 18 months thing – you know as well as everyone else that was an approximation to reiterate the fact that the storm were from the southern summer before last"
Again - And when were the pictures taken?
Bernard - "Damage that resulted in the death of the trees but not in the destruction of their branching structures?"
Again, you seem to have a hard time with reading: Yasi was my example...
"The impact on mangroves by cyclone yasi has been dramatic with vast areas killed. It is believed the deaths were caused by the storm surge that increased the inundation of salt water on mangroves"
Bernard - "And have you decided yet on the explanation that satisfies you as to why ecologists are concerned about warming as the cause, rather than some other factor?"
From your link - "it also appeared to correlate with this year's extreme warming and climate events in the region"
What "climate events" Bernard? Please explain.
Bernard - "It can’t be funding"
Of course it can't - "Scientists are calling for urgent funding to determine the exact scale and the cause"
http://omnyapp.com/shows/abc-the-world-today/mangroves-in-crisis-along-…
Bernard - "And another thing Betula, all I said was that the mangrove die-back was “a sign of the consequences of warming”. I didn’t say that warming was the proximal cause in my original post, and I’ve reiterated since that other causal factors* may be involved"
And I never said the cyclones were the cause. I just gave you another avenue of thought that you couldn't think of yourself, as evident in this remark:
Bernard - "The telling thing about this phenomenon is that there is no immediate evidence of the usual agents that harm mangroves, at least in Australia. No large flooding of fresh water into the area, no acid sulphate run-off, no eutrophication. These sites are in remote locations, so the water is unlikely to be contaminated. And from the photos I’ve seen I doubt that it’s insect defoliation"
Glad I could help.
Bernard - "Finally, just in case you haven’t already answered the question since I last posted… what is your estimate for the percentage of global warming that is attributable to humans?"
Strange, I haven't seen a response to my original questions since I asked you at #45.....
"Why don’t you tell me what percent of warming over the past 150 years is proven to be man made, and then tell me what percent of that number will be lowered over how long a period of time as a result of developing the poor nations…. and how this will affect the interaction of everything on earth at every location, above and below the ocean….in the short and long run"
Poor Bernard, your distraction isn't working...
Bernard - ""since 1993 the average rate of sea level rise at Karumba has been 6 mm per annum"
Like everything else with you Bernard, your numbers appear to be an exaggeration:
"From 1993 to 2009, the average rate of rise was 4.5 ± 1.3 mm yr-1 and this reduces to 3.1 mm yr-1 after the signal correlated with the Southern Oscillation Index is removed and an allowance for GIA and atmospheric changes" included. For comparison, the GMSL trend over 1993 to 2009 is 2.8 mm yr-1 estimated from the tide-gauge records and 3.4 mm yr-1 estimated from satellite altimeters and 3.2 mm yr-1 for the period 1993 to 2013.
Pg 129
http://www.bom.gov.au/jshess/docs/2015/mcinnes.pdf
Berbard - "But it reminds me that I was going to ask you about what exactly is the “good news” about global warming and acidification for califying plankton"
When your imagination produces a statement or link from me regarding plankton and acidification, then we can discuss it.
Until then, it's hard for me to argue with what you imagine I said...
Looks like they've resumed finding workable satellite data for Arctic ice cover:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Also looks like Arctic ice cover is at a record low for this time of year. Again.
Except that I did think of storms, as I mentioned previously. I discounted direct storm damage though, again for reasons mentioned previously, but where do you think the possible flooding waters come from that I mentioned...? Although the 15-16 storm season in norther Australia was a squib in terms of strength of winds, I didn't discount the effect of rain.
You are again making assertions to distract from the facts.
And storm surges? That happens when an intense low passes over an area, and as I indicated the cyclones of 15-16 were tiddlers. How would they generate surges that would cause the sort of die-back that would remove mangroves completely from coasts if these trees were so susceptible to inundation? If they were that susceptible to surges, mangroves would have disappeared from Carpentaria centuries ago.
Which brings me to my next point - mangroves are well able to tolerate a few hours of surges from mild to moderate storms - it is a consequence of their living in a tidal environment. They can even tolerate quite a bit of flooding of fresh water too - I grew up on the shores of Lake Macquarie, a large salt (~35 ppt) water lagoon with a constricted outlet to the sea. In heavy weather the northern end (and southern too, I assume) would flood and rise to several feet over the normal tidal range, and remain there for a day or more, with the water being very dilute brackish - and yet the mangroves growing on the Five Islands didn't even blink at being blanketed with an extra 2-3 feet of almost fresh water that took a day or more to pass out through the choke of the Swansea Channel 15 km away. In light of this I am curious how last summer's tepid storm season could cause any sort of inundation that would affect so much mangrove in the Carpentaria? Especially when the Gulf is orders of magnitude more contiguous with the open ocean than is Lake Macquarie.
Glad that I could help in educating you...
Tell me why I should respond to your questions when you STILL haven't told us what your best understanding is of the human contribution to warming?
And tell us why you are demanding from science the notion of "proven" warming.
But as you're in obvious distress from your ignorance of science, I will unburden your suffering from lack of education...
That's easy.
The choice of which path is chosen is a political one, not a scientific one, so don't even bother with your continuation of avoiding questions about science by engaging in more squirrel-pointing.
And this:
Why don't you just ask me - nay, demand of me - the location of every atom in the universe? You do realise that your 'question' is a gross logical fallacy?
Still, I'm happy to respond. On species loss, read:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/abs/nature02121.html
or some of the over two thousand citing papers. One genetic diversity loss, read:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n6/full/nclimate1191.html
As far as humans go, 1.5 °C would hurt, but be survivable, 2 °C will probably see a "global society" disintegrate over the following century, and 3 °C will pretty much see the end of an extensive technological Western civilisation. More than 4 °C and most of the remaining, (<10% wrt today) of humans will be living at a mediæval standard or worse. Around 6 °C the very existence of humans comes into question in the short term, although even lower amounts of warming may well see humans become extinct over the longer term - it would all depend on how much we emitted beforehand, and how quickly things unravelled in a future high emissions scenario.
If you want a more concrete answer diddums you'll have to be more specific in how you intend to warm the planet.
Not an exaggeration, but a calculation. Find the Karumba tide data. Easy to do. Regress the values for 1993 (when the current gauge was installed) onward. The coefficient is 0.006 to the nearest three decimal places (the actual value is higher...). The time unit is years, the height unit is metres.
Work it out. It's not difficult. 6 mm/yr is the mean rate of sea level rise at the Karumba gauge over the last 23 years. I'm not referring to an Australian composite: read my post carefully - I said "Karumba". Aye, Karumba...
Thanks for proving though that it would put a bee in your bonnet.
Oh, and Betula...
You're welcome.
I'm not saying that you linked to a paper about acidification. Again with the false attribution. I'm asking you why warming is good news for plankton in the context of what human carbon emissions are doing to the oceans. You cannot say that warming is "good news" in isolation of all other relevant factors. Such factors must be considered if one is to imply that things are hunky-dory in the warming seas. You know, in the same way that you tried (incompetently) to consider non-warming factors in the mangrove die-off.
I've already linked you to at least paper on the subject. Can't you read? Can't you search the literature? Are you even more stupid and recalcitrant ignorant of the big picture than we already assume you to be?
On representative concentration pathways...
"The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C"
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n1/full/nclimate1783.html
#95, ice melt is in uncharted territory now. It left the narrow band of previous years significantly.
April PIOMAS is record low too.
Second melt event Greenland has started. It would have been record early but for the event of a month ago.